2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 5 Ms. Bloom responded to earlier questions of Member Boguszewski regarding the Lydia 196 Avenue cul-de-sac, built in 1977 and 80’ in diameter, also on a marginal access street. 197 Ms. Bloom advised that the right-of-way appeared to be 60’ at the point moving into the 198 throat, and that it was a 32’ wide road. Ms. Bloom clarified that the City’s design 199 standards had evolved considerably since 1965 to accommodate less hardscape to 200 facilitate drainage issues. 201 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Ms. Bloom reviewed other examples of cul-de-sacs 202 and subdivisions, including the most recent Josephine Woods Development; location of 203 specific cul-de-sacs off a main road; and retention of rights-of-way for utilities, storm 204 sewer and other public infrastructure needs of the City. Ms. Bloom reiterated that this 205 proposed right-of-way was sufficient at 50’ for this specific plat. 206 At the request of Member Cunningham, Ms. Bloom reviewed parking options for guest 207 parking during special events. 208 At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Bloom advised that curbs would be standard, non- 209 surmountable 6” barriers, per City C ode, with curb cuts meeting the City’s standard 210 detail, with flares and drops for areas as applicable. According to the grading plan 211 submitted by the developer at this time, Ms. Bloom advised that driveways would have an 212 approximately 5% grade to reach the homes, which is preferred, and allowing for look-out 213 windows in the basement to achieve that grade; with infiltration basins located on the 214 south side of the proposed development. 215 Member Daire expressed interest in further research on the cul-de-sac on the north side 216 of Roseville and whether those property owners were experiencing any headlight issues; 217 and noted the proposed prototype design would have the garage set back from the 218 façade of the house structure. 219 City Planner Paschke advised that the home designs would need to meet current City 220 code, either flush or set back 5’ from the front to meet design standard requirements. 221 Regarding the light infiltration issue, Member Boguszewski questioned if the City, in any 222 of its departments, had a process to assess the reality of light infiltration and potential 223 abatement or a condition of approval for that mitigation. 224 Mr. Lloyd advised that there were no applicable City requirements currently in code; and 225 in similar situations to-date, staff had not dealt in any magnitude with this problem. Mr. 226 Lloyd advised that it was routine for the developer to work cooperatively with staff and 227 neighbors to address any of those issues, whether plantings or other screening options 228 on specific parcels. Mr. Lloyd advised that he anticipated that process in this case as 229 well. 230 Member Boguszewski questioned if the developer had any options to address light 231 infiltration at their own expense if unable to work with affected neighbors. 232 Mr. Fair advised that it was their intent to be good neighbors; but admitted that here was 233 little room to mitigate the issue on their properties, and they would seek resolution on 234 neighboring sites at this point. 235 Given the steep grades proposed, Member Boguszewski proposed an objective third 236 party to provide research and demonstrate that normal headlights would not travel into 237 those properties on the northern slope. 238 Mr. Fair concurred that this would be a simple study for their firm’s engineers to address. 239 Member Boguszewski opined that he would be interested in hearing the developer’s 240 commitment to that further research and mitigation efforts. 241 Mr. Fair advised that they were committed to working with neighbors and getting trees 242 planted on site. 243 Mr. Paschke advised that, even though that was part of the process from the 244 administrative level, the Planning Commission would make it a condition of approval, 245