pf_03791 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts of the DRAFT November 1, 2006 Roseville Planning Commission meeting Ms. Bloom reviewed, from discussions at a previous meeting when the original PUD was reviewed, the standard trip estimates, based on the standard traffic engineer's manual (ITE) related to the average number of daily trips (10) generated per day for a single-family home, and advised that both roadways were had sufficient capacity. At the request of Chair Traynor, Ms. Bloom addressed lighting on Acorn Road, another concern raised by Mr. Emerson. Ms. Bloom advised that, in previous discussions, the neighborhood consensus was that they didn't want street lighting; but that the City was open to reconsidering installation of a City paid and maintained street light at intersections and/or curves, with the 100% support from all property owners within 100' of the proposed location, and upon receipt of a signed petition processed through the Public Works Department. City staff had provided, for Commission information, a Bench Handout representing an excerpt of the Roseville City Council minutes for September 25, 2006, where they discussed, and ultimately denied (312 vote) the PUD application. Mr. Ramalingam Mr. Ramalingam questioned whether his previously-agreed-upon approval for a drainage pond as part of his property for construction of a private road, was now similar for the proposed public roadway; opining that he wasn't sure he was interested in allowing drainage on his property anymore from this development. Mr. Ramalingam also questioned if parking would be allowed on the public street. Mr. Paschke advised that the new plan is similar to the previous plan, other than for the road design, easement, and right-of-way areas, and a slight modification in lot size. Ms. Bloom advised that she was in ongoing discussions with Mr. Mueller and his engineer to address the requirements of the City for drainage, water quality and rate control; but that no drainage plan had been approved at this time, and they would need Mr. Ramalingam's permission to cross his property (i.e., easement) prior to proceeding. Ms. Bloom noted that the drainage management plan would need to meet potential flooding issues, and satisfy Engineering Department requirements; and meet any public easements required prior to proceeding with permit issuance to proceed. Ms. Bloom advised that there were numerous options for the developer to consider as part of the drainage plan, including an underground chamber system and/or a rain garden. Ms. Bloom, in addressing the parking question, noted that, standards dictate that no parking was allowed on any roadway narrower than twenty-eight feet (28'). Chair Traynor noted staff's recommended condition 5.3 related to approval for grading, drainage and storm water management. Gary Boryczka, 2250 Acorn Road Mr. Boryczka had several questions regarding the location of the proposed driveways to the street and/or intersection, which were addressed by staff. Mr. Boryczki reviewed his historical perspective of the 1995 construction of Acorn Road, opining that it was the smallest road in Roseville, and was sized in accordance to input from property owners so as to diminish impact to the neighborhood. Ms. Boryczki opined that there was no expectation at that time of the magnitude of development off this small road, and if intentions were known at the time of that decision, the road wouldn't have been allowed to be built this small. Mr. Boryczki questioned staff's actual review of the plans as submitted; and opined that staff "alwavs approved them."