2014_0421_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment E 4� Member Daire questioned if the Public Works Department had determined that the proposed drainage 4� pond would be sufficient to hold the additional water coming off the adjacent streets. 5G Mr. Lloyd advised that he Public Works Department was continuing to work with the developer to make 5+� sure storm water drainage is handled on site according to City Code and Watershed District 5� requirements, whether it was coming from the site itself or flowing onto the site from elsewhere. 53 At the prompting of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that any runoff from the street would be 5� intercepted by catch basins and diverted through pipes into the infiltration pond. 55 Mr. Paschke noted that, at this preliminary stage of the proposed development, no final plans for drainage 5� had been submitted, with staff at this point reviewing details on the preliminary plans, and then following 57 through as the process continued. 58 Applicant representatives were present, but had no comments beyond the staff presentation and report. 5� Public Comment 60 Mike Metz, 320 County Road B West (across the street from subject property) 61 Mr. Metz observed that it appeared 90% of the trees on the tree preservation map appeared to be marked 6� for removal; and while he had no problem since other than those directly around the dwelling were not 6�s necessarily worth saving. 64 Mr. Paschke clarified that only certain species and/or sizes counted toward tree preservation 65 requirements, as the removal of some species was preferred and not required to be saved. 66 Mr. Metz opined that, depending on the remaining tree coverage, it would be nice to see a re-vegetation 67 plan to accommodate future reforestation. 6� Regarding drainage, Mr. Metz suggested this may be a prudent time to incorporate drainage solutions 6� from a broader area, such as the MnDOT area's drainage developed as part of the highway system. Mr. 70 Metz suggested including that mitigation as part of this development if possible. 71 Mr. Paschke, clarifying that Mr. Metz was suggesting co-mingling ponding on this development site with 72 that of MnDOT property, and expressed his doubt, based on past discussions and experience, that 73 MnDOT would be receptive to that. Mr. Paschke noted that MnDOT had very little land in some of their 7�i- rights-of-way; and while in some cases co-mingling could occur, in this case he didn't see that possibility. 75 Mr. Paschke noted that it was worth asking MnDOT, but he felt they would not be receptive to the 76 suggestion. 7i Mr. Metz questioned his understanding for the rational in moving from LDR-1 to LDR-2 zoning, 78 expressing his concern as well as several neighbors that this may create an option for multi-family 7� housing rather than the neighborhood's preference for it to remain single-family residential. 80 Mr. Paschke noted that Mr. Lloyd's presentation indicated that the proposed subdivision could meet LDR- 8+ 1 requirements for a minimum lot width of 85'; however the rationale for suggesting LDR-2 zoning was to 8�� configure the lots to not only be consistent with surrounding and adjacent properties, but also to allow for 83 improving storm drainage on the development property as well as the broader neighborhood. Mr. 84 Paschke noted that there was enough land to meet LDR-1 requirements, including the existing lots of Mr. 85 Metz and his neighbors. 8� Mr. Lloyd noted that the developer is proposing single-family homes as noted in the report; but noted that 8i` the LDR-2 zoning would also allow for twin homes or duplexes; and at some point in the future if and 8� when these proposed homes were demolished, they could be replaced by twin homes or duplexes. 89 However, Mr. Lloyd noted that was the case with many other parcels throughout the community. 90 Sheila Metz, 320 County Road B West 91 Ms. Metz requested a proposed timeline for construction, and if the neighbors could expect a"loud" 92, summer. Ms. Metz also requested information on what was proposed for the existing historic little house 9d and windmill on the site. 94 Mr. Paschke opined that the proposal for all existing structures was for their removal. Mr. Paschke noted 95 that the Roseville Fire Department was working with the developer for a burn exercise on the structure, Page 2 of 5