2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 7 with the center line of the cul-de-sac compared to the height of his driveway and water 299 runoff onto his property and that of his neighbors. Mr. Rossbach opined that the major 300 issues are not being addressed; and the proposed homes should have full basements or 301 split entries, but not full look-outs. 302 In response, Mr. Lloyd advised that the data provided by the developer was still being 303 analyzed by staff related to storm water issues; and would require full approval after that 304 analysis for final plat approval, meeting various requirements. Mr. Lloyd advised that he 305 didn’t have the expertise to respond to Mr. Rossbach’s concerns, but assured all that the 306 City’s Engineering Department, along with applicable watershed staff would be reviewing 307 the plans in detail to ensure they met requirements. Mr. Lloyd reiterated the comments of 308 City Engineer Bloom that the runoff from the site could not be greater than before the 309 development, and the grade would need to accommodate that requirement. 310 At the request of Mr. Rossbach, Mr. Lloyd addressed height requirements in Roseville 311 and grades accordingly. 312 Mr. Paschke clarified that there was nothing in City Code that prevented a look-out home 313 design. 314 At the request of Mr. Rossbach, Ms. Bloom addressed City Code as it covered plat, road, 315 grading and drainage requirements, including infill developments, reiterating that no 316 water could go from one site to another. Ms. Bloom recognized existing drainage routes 317 and swale locations that were not problematic above and beyond this development. Ms. 318 Bloom advised that staff would make sure there was no runoff from this development to 319 side properties, and would convey the water where at the right location. 320 At the request of Member Cunningham, Ms. Bloom addressed concerns after 321 construction if there was a drainage issue. Ms. Bloom noted that water didn’t flow uphill, 322 and the Engineering Department would receive an “as built” survey from the developer at 323 the conclusion of construction, and it would then be monitored and periodically reviewed. 324 Ms. Bloom noted that typical drainage issues were created by homeowners filling in 325 swales. Ms. Bloom clarified that she was unable to address groundwater, but was only 326 talking about surface water. 327 Steve Hasse, 932 Millwood 328 As a neighbor directly across the street from the proposed development, Mr. Hasse 329 concurred with previously addressed concerns of the neighborhood. However, Mr. Hasse 330 advised that other of his concerns had not even been brought up yet, including not only 331 concerns with light problems going into the cul-de-sac, but also for those like him living 332 across the street. Based on the location of his property, Mr. Hasse opined that if the cul- 333 de-sac was 7’ taller than Millwood Avenue, the headlights would go directly down the 334 street into his house and his immediate neighbors to the east. Mr. Hasse stated that he 335 didn’t want a hedge in front of his house, and that this was not the aesthetics of their 336 neighborhood. 337 Another concern expressed by Mr. Hasse was drainage, and his observations of the low 338 areas that existed between property lines, and water currently draining right through their 339 lots. Mr. Hasse advised that in the spring, he frequently couldn’t get into his shop due to 340 high water. When the curb and gutter was installed on Millwood Avenue in 1996 or 1997, 341 Mr. Hasse advised that he had asked for loads of dirt for his front yard from the 342 excavator; and quoted the excavator as noting the boggy, peat type of soil. Mr. Hasse 343 opined that a considerable amount of quality soil would be needed for construction of 344 these homes, costing significant money for the developer. Mr. Hasse questioned why the 345 developer didn’t consider building the homes facing the other direction; and why they 346 were considering townhomes at all. 347 Chair Gisselquist clarified that this was a private parcel of land that could be developed 348 as preferred by the property owner, within the confines of City Code requirements. 349