My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0421_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0421_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:43:38 PM
Creation date
4/17/2014 2:45:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment E <br />4� Member Daire questioned if the Public Works Department had determined that the proposed drainage <br />4� pond would be sufficient to hold the additional water coming off the adjacent streets. <br />5G Mr. Lloyd advised that he Public Works Department was continuing to work with the developer to make <br />5+� sure storm water drainage is handled on site according to City Code and Watershed District <br />5� requirements, whether it was coming from the site itself or flowing onto the site from elsewhere. <br />53 At the prompting of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that any runoff from the street would be <br />5� intercepted by catch basins and diverted through pipes into the infiltration pond. <br />55 Mr. Paschke noted that, at this preliminary stage of the proposed development, no final plans for drainage <br />5� had been submitted, with staff at this point reviewing details on the preliminary plans, and then following <br />57 through as the process continued. <br />58 Applicant representatives were present, but had no comments beyond the staff presentation and report. <br />5� <br />Public Comment <br />60 Mike Metz, 320 County Road B West (across the street from subject property) <br />61 Mr. Metz observed that it appeared 90% of the trees on the tree preservation map appeared to be marked <br />6� for removal; and while he had no problem since other than those directly around the dwelling were not <br />6�s necessarily worth saving. <br />64 Mr. Paschke clarified that only certain species and/or sizes counted toward tree preservation <br />65 requirements, as the removal of some species was preferred and not required to be saved. <br />66 Mr. Metz opined that, depending on the remaining tree coverage, it would be nice to see a re-vegetation <br />67 plan to accommodate future reforestation. <br />6� Regarding drainage, Mr. Metz suggested this may be a prudent time to incorporate drainage solutions <br />6� from a broader area, such as the MnDOT area's drainage developed as part of the highway system. Mr. <br />70 Metz suggested including that mitigation as part of this development if possible. <br />71 Mr. Paschke, clarifying that Mr. Metz was suggesting co-mingling ponding on this development site with <br />72 that of MnDOT property, and expressed his doubt, based on past discussions and experience, that <br />73 MnDOT would be receptive to that. Mr. Paschke noted that MnDOT had very little land in some of their <br />7�i- rights-of-way; and while in some cases co-mingling could occur, in this case he didn't see that possibility. <br />75 Mr. Paschke noted that it was worth asking MnDOT, but he felt they would not be receptive to the <br />76 suggestion. <br />7i Mr. Metz questioned his understanding for the rational in moving from LDR-1 to LDR-2 zoning, <br />78 expressing his concern as well as several neighbors that this may create an option for multi-family <br />7� housing rather than the neighborhood's preference for it to remain single-family residential. <br />80 Mr. Paschke noted that Mr. Lloyd's presentation indicated that the proposed subdivision could meet LDR- <br />8+ 1 requirements for a minimum lot width of 85'; however the rationale for suggesting LDR-2 zoning was to <br />8�� configure the lots to not only be consistent with surrounding and adjacent properties, but also to allow for <br />83 improving storm drainage on the development property as well as the broader neighborhood. Mr. <br />84 Paschke noted that there was enough land to meet LDR-1 requirements, including the existing lots of Mr. <br />85 Metz and his neighbors. <br />8� Mr. Lloyd noted that the developer is proposing single-family homes as noted in the report; but noted that <br />8i` the LDR-2 zoning would also allow for twin homes or duplexes; and at some point in the future if and <br />8� when these proposed homes were demolished, they could be replaced by twin homes or duplexes. <br />89 However, Mr. Lloyd noted that was the case with many other parcels throughout the community. <br />90 Sheila Metz, 320 County Road B West <br />91 Ms. Metz requested a proposed timeline for construction, and if the neighbors could expect a"loud" <br />92, summer. Ms. Metz also requested information on what was proposed for the existing historic little house <br />9d and windmill on the site. <br />94 Mr. Paschke opined that the proposal for all existing structures was for their removal. Mr. Paschke noted <br />95 that the Roseville Fire Department was working with the developer for a burn exercise on the structure, <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.