Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Thursday, April 10, 2014 <br />Page 9 <br />In his review of the plat, Member Stellmach noted inclusion of both rain gardens and <br />395 <br />ponds, and sought a distinction in them and which if either would have standing water <br />396 <br />involved. <br />397 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that a rain garden was intended for infiltration versus a pond <br />398 <br />designed to hold water for a specific time, depending on rain events. <br />399 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke advised that the depth of rain gardens and <br />400 <br />ponds would vary, and their design still pending as part of the preliminary design process, <br />401 <br />with the City’s Engineering Department reviewing that design based on storm water <br />402 <br />calculations and how water was directed into the rain gardens and/or ponds from the <br />403 <br />overall site or area. Mr. Paschke advised that, while this review is an ongoing process at <br />404 <br />the staff level, it would not be finalized until a Final Plat and design came forward. <br />405 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke advised that, with few exceptions based on <br />406 <br />their specifics, the City was not supportive of fencing around drainage ponds or rain <br />407 <br />gardens based on them being more of a hindrance if emergency rescue operations were <br />408 <br />required. <br />409 <br />Member Murphy referenced the traffic study included in the staff report (Attachment E) <br />410 <br />and expressed his appreciation for providing that information. However, in reviewing it, <br />411 <br />Member Murphy noted that the full report was not included, specifically references to <br />412 <br />Table 4. <br />413 <br />Mr. Paschke apologized for that omission, and displayed the Table in question for the <br />414 <br />Commission’s and public’s review; with the table showing 2016 intersection capacity <br />415 <br />analyses for morning and afternoon peak hours, and current and projected level of <br />416 <br />service for Dale Street/Lovell Avenue and Dale Street/Cope Avenue. <br />417 <br />Member Boguszewski observed that there was no change projected; and also expressed <br />418 <br />his appreciation for including the traffic study in materials, even though not required. <br />419 <br />Applicant representatives were present, but had no comment beyond staff’s presentation. <br />420 <br />Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at approximately 7:48 p.m.; with no one <br />421 <br />appearing for or against. <br />422 <br />Member Boguszewski spoke in support of the proposal; and opined, with consensus of <br />423 <br />the fellow commissioners, that most of the substantive questions and issues had been <br />424 <br />reviewed at the previous meeting, and this approval was more of a formality. <br />425 <br />MOTION <br />426 <br />Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the <br />427 <br />City Council APPROVAL of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of Fire House <br />428 <br />Addition; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the <br />429 <br />recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated April 10, 2014. <br /> <br />430 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />431 <br />Nays: 0 <br />432 <br />Motion carried. <br />433 <br />This case is scheduled for consideration by the City Council on April 21, 2014. <br />434 <br />d. PLANNING FILE 0017 – PROJECT 0021 <br />435 <br />Request by the City of Roseville for TEXT AMENDMENTS to Chapter 4, Land Use of <br />436 <br />the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and Section 1005.07.A, Statement of Purposes, of the <br />437 <br />ZONING ORDINANCE, regarding the Community Mixed Use definition <br />438 <br />Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 14-007 at 7:59 p.m. <br />439 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request as detailed in the staff report dated <br />440 <br />April 10, 2014, as a result of the City Council’s request to address ambiguities and <br />441 <br />inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan, Section 1005.07/a, Statement of <br />442 <br />Purpose, and the current Zoning Ordinance, specific to Community Mixed Use <br />443 <br /> <br />