2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 13 as City Code and design guidelines were followed. Member Boguszewski opined that, 609 therefore, the Commission had no right to address those issues; and stated that he would 610 support the motion. 611 Member Cunningham thanked all the neighbors for coming out, and expressed 612 appreciation that they had banded together. However, Member Cunningham expressed 613 her disappointment that there was so much apparent distrust between the developer and 614 neighborhood, and questioned where that originated and asked both sides to 615 cooperatively work together for the benefit of all. Member Cunningham suggested that, 616 with this undeveloped property in a fully-developed Roseville, the neighbors should have 617 realistically anticipated that there was the possibility that a new subdivision would 618 eventually be developed on that property; and expressed her concern that this distrust 619 and lack of welcome may spill over into the remainder of the community. While personally 620 in agreement with the public comments made about the aesthetics, Member Cunningham 621 noted that unfortunately her hands were tied, and this could not be part of the decision- 622 making process of the Commission. Member Cunningham expressed appreciation to 623 staff for their input and recommendation for the size of the cul-de-sac and roadway and 624 deferred to their expertise. While recognizing that some skepticism was understandable, 625 Member Cunningham opined that the existing drainage issues were problematic, but not 626 tied to this development, and the proposed storm water management system designed to 627 handle runoff from that parcel. 628 Member Cunningham encouraged neighbors to meet with staff, as suggested, to attempt 629 mitigation of those existing drainage issues; however, she remained convinced that the 630 drainage issues of the new development had been and would continue to be addressed; 631 and if not, there was a recourse available to the neighborhood to resolve that. 632 Member Cunningham advised that she lived on Fairview Avenue, also a busy street that 633 she didn’t appreciate, but had been aware of that possibility; and expressed her hope that 634 this development didn’t increase traffic dramatically, and observed that the traffic study 635 appeared to support minimal impact. 636 Member Cunningham encouraged compromise between the developers and neighbors 637 on issues; and advised that she would support the motion. 638 Member Daire advised that he had been totally unaware of the backyard drainage 639 situation outlined by the McElroy’s written comments; and expressed understanding for 640 their concerns with any new development potentially changing the drainage across those 641 backyards. Member Daire advised that he trusted the City Engineer and her ability to 642 address the drainage and her assurances that the situation wouldn’t work toward any 643 further detriment of the neighbors, and was a pre-existing condition. Member Daire 644 opined that it was never too late to take mitigating steps to correct that difficulty; and 645 while not knowing if the neighbors had complained to the City or upstream neighbors to- 646 date, suggested that they do so and offered his personal sympathy to them for their 647 situation. Since he personally lived adjacent to a park, Member Daire advised that he was 648 fairly sensitive to the reality in living next to a wooded area and having such an amenity 649 to enjoy. However, Member Daire recognized that it was probably not a reality for an 650 inner-ring suburb such as Roseville and the interest it had been experiencing for infill 651 development to keep contractors and developers from their interest in keeping their 652 employees working and companies viable. 653 Aside from that, Member Daire noted that the Commission was required to uphold City 654 Codes and laws as they currently stood; and if this particular proposal was economically 655 viable and satisfied those codes, the Commission was not at liberty to deny the 656 application, just as it couldn’t deny a similar application from the neighbors that fell within 657 those confines and their rights as citizens and private property owners. 658 Member Daire stated that, while he felt the pain of the neighbors, he would support the 659 motion. 660