My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013_08_07_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013_08_07_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2014 11:30:16 AM
Creation date
10/21/2014 11:30:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, August 7, 2013 <br />Page 3 <br />Ms. Bloom noted that the swale on Eldridge addressed by Ms. Merrill was a result of when the <br />92 <br />church properties were developed approximately twenty (20) years ago, and given the large <br />93 <br />amount of flat area, had been a chronic issue for staff. <br />94 <br />Under the City of Roseville’s current Stormwater Management Plan, Ms. Bloom advised that any <br />95 <br />additional impervious surface was required to be addressed with volume reduction mitigation. Ms. <br />96 <br />Bloom noted that the real issue was the area immediately adjacent to the catch basin, with water <br />97 <br />ponding. With this proposed development, Ms. Bloom advised that the church would be required <br />98 <br />to install a biofiltration basis as part of the building, which would include trench, rock and drain tile <br />99 <br />to connect to the existing storm basin in that area. Ms. Bloom advised that the improvement <br />100 <br />would be entirely on church property as a grassy area and maintained 100% by the church; and <br />101 <br />opined that this mitigation should serve to eliminate the bog area in adjacent back yards. Ms. <br />102 <br />Bloom advised that a solution was in process, with her reviewing plans last week, which seemed <br />103 <br />to be sufficient to mitigate their existing and proposed hard surface volumes. <br />104 <br />Member Murphy questioned if, at the end of the three (3) year period when the structure was <br />105 <br />removed, if the impervious surface would remain. <br />106 <br />Ms. Bloom responded that it would probably not remain. However, Ms. Bloom reiterated that this <br />107 <br />stormwater management solution would continue to help in the long-term; and would operate <br />108 <br />effectively like a farm field drain tile (French drain), with stormwater soaking into the ground <br />109 <br />versus sitting above ground. <br />110 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Ms. Bloom advised that this proposed mitigation specific to <br />111 <br />this project will not address the larger drainage issue, as it was only required to address those <br />112 <br />issues created by the proposed permit. <br />113 <br />In addressing the overall drainage problems in this area, Ms. Bloom advised that there were <br />114 <br />sixteen (16) areas south of Highway 36 that needed mitigated. Ms. Bloom noted that a similar re- <br />115 <br />use system was being proposed for Acorn Park as part of the Park Renewal Program. Ms. Bloom <br />116 <br />noted that it was a challenge to mitigate the drainage issues for this area without taking out <br />117 <br />houses; with a pond site overwhelming the area; thus the reason for breaking the area into sub- <br />118 <br />watersheds. Ms. Bloom noted that something similar to this had been accomplished through <br />119 <br />volunteers at Midland Hills and installation of rain gardens. <br />120 <br />If the Interim Use is granted, Member Murphy sought assurance, with Ms. Bloom confirming it, <br />121 <br />that the proposed project would not make the problem worse tomorrow than it already is. <br />122 <br />Mr. Lloyd referenced the Site Plan (Attachment C), noting that the original intent was for a six foot <br />123 <br />(6’) separation between the existing building and temporary structure. However, Mr. Lloyd <br />124 <br />advised that building code requirements necessitated the separation would actually need to be <br />125 <br />thirty feet (30’). <br />126 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd advised that the revised code requirements did not <br />127 <br />materially change staff’s recommendation for approval. Mr. Lloyd noted that the proposed <br />128 <br />structure still more than met required setbacks for permanent structures. <br />129 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd advised that, with one exception, all other code <br />130 <br />requirements for issuing an Interim Use had been met from staff’s perspective. The only <br />131 <br />outstanding requirement addressed by Mr. Lloyd was included as a condition for the applicant to <br />132 <br />provide a stormwater management plan to address those issues previously noted by City <br />133 <br />Engineer Bloom for the additional impervious surface; and reiterated that the Use was only <br />134 <br />permitted for three (3) years. <br />135 <br />Applicant Brent Thompson; Representing HIH Montessori <br />136 <br />Mr. Thompson advised that he had nothing to add beyond staff’s report and presentation. <br />137 <br />Mr. Thompson clarified that HIH currently operated out of the Corpus Christi Catholic Church on <br />138 <br />Fairview Avenue; and offered a unique school model that continued to experience growth thus <br />139 <br />creating the need for an interim building that would be torn down after the three (3) years. Mr. <br />140 <br />Thompson noted ongoing discussions with the City’s Building Official and their intent to meet all <br />141 <br />City Code requirements; and ultimately providing a Site Plan and Building Plan, as well as <br />142 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.