Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 <br />Page 9 <br />Ms. Bloom advised that the City required soil borings form the developer as part of the <br />402 <br />process, with some already done, and others still required. Regarding the property’s <br />403 <br />ownership, Ms. Bloom clarified that the former owner, George Reiling, was a gentleman <br />404 <br />farmer and died about six (6) years ago. Ms. Bloom noted that the Josephine Woods plat <br />405 <br />was also previously owned by Mr. Reiling, along with this property, both of which had <br />406 <br />been sold. <br />407 <br />Paul Rossbach <br /> disputed the former ownership of the property, noting that his property <br />408 <br />had originally been divided from the entire parcel in 1997 or 1998; and he had dealt with <br />409 <br />a trust company, not a farmer. <br />410 <br />Rob Zupancich, 912 Millwood Avenue <br />411 <br />As a next-door neighbor to Mr. Larson, Mr. Zupancich also advised that he was very <br />412 <br />concerned with drainage from the proposed development. As the father of 3 small boys, <br />413 <br />Mr. Zupancich questioned how deep the catch basins were at high water times; and <br />414 <br />expressed his concern with anyone ending up face-down in them during those events. <br />415 <br />Tim Meyer, 944 Millwood – directly across street <br />416 <br />As a property owner directly across the street, Mr. Meyer opined that it did not <br />417 <br />aesthetically fit into the neighborhood, would look “stupid, “ and sounded like nothing <br />418 <br />more than a 7’ pile of dirt in the middle of the property. Mr. Meyer further opined that the <br />419 <br />neighbors would be looking at sides of houses, rather than fronts; and questioned who <br />420 <br />would enforce parking if it was only allowed on one side of a street, especially if and <br />421 <br />when someone had a party. <br />422 <br />With Member Cunningham referencing the letter from the McElroy’s and attached review <br />423 <br />by an outside surveyor and engineer, and parking restrictions not enforceable on private <br />424 <br />roadways, Ms. Bloom clarified that the road would be public, not private with parking <br />425 <br />enforced by the Roseville Police Department. <br />426 <br />Mr. Zupancich <br />At the request of , Ms. Bloom clarified that the developer paid 100% for <br />427 <br />the construction of the road and associated improvements, and after completion, the City <br />428 <br />would maintain the road as other public roadways through city-wide property taxes. <br />429 <br />Mr. Meyer noted concerns with drainage, stating that water rushes off the property now, <br />430 <br />even without a big rain, and questioned how the development could possible work if <br />431 <br />proposed to built it up 7’. <br />432 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Bloom confirmed that standard, 6’ high, B-16 curbs <br />433 <br />were installed along Millwood Avenue; with 18” gutter pads with the gutter designed to <br />434 <br />carry runoff. <br />435 <br />Member Daire noted that there were a number of properties without trees along the north <br />436 <br />side of Millwood Avenue at a higher elevation, and questioned if the water was draining <br />437 <br />off those residential properties as well as off the wooded properties, with Ms. Bloom <br />438 <br />responding affirmatively. <br />439 <br />Ms. Bloom responded to additional technical roadway and drainage design issues of <br />440 <br />Member Daire, including height of the road crown on Millwood Avenue; extended gutter <br />441 <br />at center of road during high runoff times; and drainage of street drains into a storm <br />442 <br />sewer off Victoria Street, through a pipe into the right-of way in addition to several catch <br />443 <br />basins in public rights-of-way. <br />444 <br />Mr. Meyer noted that storm water currently runs behind the properties, and with the <br />445 <br />addition of this “7’ pile of dirt on this property, additional runoff will land in these people’s <br />446 <br />backyards.” <br />447 <br />Member Daire clarified that, while attention is currently being given to the subject <br />448 <br />property, with an effort made for a grading plan to ensure any drainage was contained on <br />449 <br />site and not running into adjacent properties, there appeared to be an existing drainage <br />450 <br />route running through back yards requiring the use of existing property. Member Daire <br />451 <br />questioned whether there was drainage coming from further up Victoria Street, with the <br />452 <br /> <br />