2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 12 the specifics of their design, including 12” of bio-retention soil, porous dirt for 30” and 1’ of 555 “bounce,” resulting in the deepest standing water of no more than 1’ and landscaped with 556 plants intended for wet soils. Ms. Bloom cautioned that final design for the storm water 557 management was not yet finalized, but it would be sized to address runoff from the site, 558 through some type of under-drain system connecting to the City’s storm water system. 559 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Ms. Bloom clarified that the storm water management 560 system would be designed for this development was typical for water runoff from a 561 structure and eventually flows into the street. Ms. Bloom noted that backyard runoff 562 worked similarly; and that this was how a subdivision was designed, to address rain 563 events of 6” or more, based on costs and average rain events, the water was routed to 564 the street. Ms. Bloom recognized those homes in the neighborhood that had backyards 565 and wetlands with standing water, which served as an under-drain in that area, an 566 extension of the park, and it did induce mosquitoes and boggy-type plants, and the 567 drainage swales were basically an engineer-designed ditch. Ms. Bloom provided several 568 examples of similar storm water management systems that as the backyard swales in 569 this neighborhood, that had also failed several years ago due to excessive rain events. 570 Ms. Bloom noted that the under-drain design for this development had become standard 571 design to mitigate and avoid standing water and allowing for sufficient drainage. 572 MOTION 573 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the 574 City Council approval of the proposed JOSEPHINE HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT, 575 based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the recommendation of 576 Section of the staff report dated May 1, 2013. 577 Member Position Statements 578 Chair Gisselquist expressed his admiration for the community efforts displayed and 579 points made by the neighbors. While Chair Gisselquist recognized that the development 580 of this current wooded area into six (6) single-family homes was a huge change for the 581 neighborhood, with people expecting that open space to continue, the neighborhood also 582 needed to be realistic. As this chunk of undeveloped land available in a first-ring suburb, 583 Chair Gisselquist opined that this provided a unique and seldom seen opportunity for 584 development in Roseville; and therefore he would support the motion. Chair Gisselquist 585 stated that the City Engineer and developer had proven to him that the drainage 586 problems will be dealt with; and further stated that the concern with aesthetics were of 587 minimal interest to him in his decision making. Chair Gisselquist noted that the City and 588 its staff had good working relationship with developers, and he was confident that the 589 mitigation efforts for storm water management would be sufficient to address those 590 concerns of the neighborhood. 591 Member Boguszewski concurred with Chair Gisselquist’s comments. In his review of the 592 public comments expressed tonight, and those written comments provided, Member 593 Boguszewski stated that those objections and concerns appeared to be in two (2) 594 categories. The first category was technical related to water runoff and trees. Member 595 Boguszewski stated that he was confident that the engineering needs as described were 596 designed to prevent those specific things feared by the neighbors in water runoff and 597 development of this land. Member Boguszewski opined that the question of constructing 598 four (4) houses perpendicular to the street versus six (6) houses around a cul-de-sac had 599 little to do with water runoff; and therefore, comparing this development to the existing 600 conditions is not appropriate. Member Boguszewski opined that the technical concerns 601 had been addressed to his satisfaction. 602 Regarding the aesthetics of this development, Member Boguszewski opined that there 603 was no City Code against greed, nor did the City have any authority to mandate how 604 someone developed their lots as long as they met applicable requirements. While not 605 necessarily in agreement with what his neighbor chose to do on their property, Member 606 Boguszewski noted that he as a neighboring property owner, nor as a Commissioner, nor 607 the City itself, could prohibit a private property owner developing their property, as long 608