My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_04_10_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
2014_04_10_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2014 11:39:07 AM
Creation date
10/21/2014 11:39:05 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.
/
11
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 – Thursday, April 10, 2014 <br />Page 2 <br />5. Communications and Recognitions <br />45 <br />a. From the Public (Public Comment on items not on the agenda) <br />46 <br />No one appeared to speak at this time. <br />47 <br />b. From the Commission or Staff <br />48 <br />None. <br />49 <br />6. Public Hearings <br />50 <br />Chair Gisselquist reviewed the protocol for Public Hearings and subsequent process. <br />51 <br />PLANNING FILE 14-002 <br />a. <br />52 <br />Request by J. W. Moore, Inc., holder of a purchase agreement for the residential <br />53 <br />property at 297-311 County Road B, for approval of a REZONING from LDR-1 to <br />54 <br />LDR-2 and a PRELIMINARY PLAT creating seven (7) residential lots <br /> <br />55 <br />Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 14-002 at 6:38 p.m. <br />56 <br />Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request of J. W. Moore to rezone the residential <br />57 <br />parcels at 297-311 County Road B to facilitate a seven-lot single-family residential plat. <br />58 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the proposal also included the VACATION of an existing drainage <br />59 <br />and utility easement with the intent to relocate that easement and install storm water <br />60 <br />infrastructure to improve area drainage as well as meeting requirements of the proposed <br />61 <br />development. Further details and staff’s analysis were provided in the staff report dated <br />62 <br />April 10, 2014. <br />63 <br />As detailed in Rezoning Analysis Section 5.2 of the staff report, the narrowest of the <br />64 <br />proposed lots and the smallest area exceed minimum requirements for width and square <br />65 <br />feet of the area in the LDR-2 District. <br />66 <br />Under Section 6.0 of the staff report, Mr. Lloyd noted that the Public Works Department <br />67 <br />had reviewed the proposed vacation/relocation of the storm drainage and utility easement <br />68 <br />and is supportive of it provided the replacement easement meets pertinent requirements; <br />69 <br />with the applicant continuing to work with staff on those details if and when the <br />70 <br />application process proceeds. <br />71 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was supportive of the request as conditioned. <br />72 <br />Member Daire questioned if runoff onto Sandhurst Drive and Farrington Street would be <br />73 <br />directed to the proposed filtration pond. <br />74 <br />Mr. Lloyd responded that it was his understanding that the rain water currently ran off <br />75 <br />those streets, ending up on the subject property; but that the proposal would focus that <br />76 <br />runoff more to a destination allowing for infiltration to control the rate and flow before <br />77 <br />leaving the subject property site. <br />78 <br />Member Boguszewski sought clarification that four parcels would be addressed on <br />79 <br />Farrington Street and the remaining three would have a County Road B address. <br />80 <br />Mr. Lloyd confirmed that, noting that Lot 4 could be addressed to either street. <br />81 <br />Member Boguszewski note that, with the narrower lot width allowed under an LDR-2 <br />82 <br />zoning at 70’, the proposed lots looked similar to the width of existing properties at 283, <br />83 <br />285 and 293 County Road B, maintaining the character of the neighborhood and those <br />84 <br />existing lots. <br />85 <br />Mr. Lloyd clarified that the proposed lots may be wider than existing lots to the east, but <br />86 <br />would still remain similar in size. <br />87 <br />Within the body of the report, specifically Section 7.4, Member Boguszewski noted that a <br />88 <br />condition of the grading permit was that it be subject to a final tree preservation plan. <br />89 <br />However, Member Boguszewski noted that it was not specified in the suggested action of <br />90 <br />the Planning Commission; and questioned if it would include that condition by reference. <br />91 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.