2015_0608_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Page 3 :�� At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the current drainage easement 9� was between the current property owner and City of Roseville; as well would future �,5 easements involve the property owner(s) and City. �� Member Daire referenced the staff report indicating that the existing home was one of the �� oldest homes in Roseville, and asked that staff address that in more detail. 99 As noted in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd reported that the home located at 311 County Road � c�� B was along the Heritage Trail defined by the Roseville Historical Society that identified � c� ! area historic homes. Mr. Lloyd clarified that this was basically an interest versus a � c�% regulatory list, and even though not considered insignificant that the property was located � c�.s along the trail, its historical designation on that local trail was not something the City � G��- could regulate. Mr. Lloyd also noted that the windmill on the subject property site, having 1 G� created some concern with its preservation in the previous preliminary plat, was currently 1 c�� being addressed by the applicant in working with the property owners on the south side 107 of County Road B to relocate versus demolish it as redevelopment occurs. 1 G3 Member Daire asked if the applicant was intent to demolish that old home. 109 Mr. Lloyd responded that plans for demolition were his understanding as it was on the lot 1 � o line or near enough to the lot boundary that it would require relocation. Given the age and 11 � condition of the structure, Mr. Lloyd advised that he was not sure how feasible that would 1�t � be cost-wise and/or in re-using the structure, allowing the applicant to recover their 1 � 3 expenses. However, since the Roseville Historical Society is now aware of 1 �=? redevelopment plans, and the existing structures on site, staff anticipated they would be 115 coordinating any physical or photographic preservation of the property as they desired. 1 i� Specific to a proposed sound barrier along Highway 36, and from discussions held with 1 �% the previous preliminary plat proposal in 2014, Member Daire sought clarification on 1 � 3 whether or not nearby residents preferences for noise mitigation had been considered or 1 � 9 if a sound barrier was part of future plans, and questioned how its construction might be 12o financed. 12 i Mr. Lloyd responded that the applicant was not required to construct a sound barrier to 1<r; the standards that would be required by MnDOT, even though interest may have been 123 peaked in doing so. In discussions earlier today with the applicant, Mr. Lloyd stated that 124 the applicant planned to build the house closest to the highway with a higher level of 125 insulation to mitigate noise concerns with highway traffic. However, Mr. Lloyd noted it 12� remained to be seen whether that would perForm well enough to address the noise and 12� would serve to determine whether that additional level of insulation would be applied to 12�3 other homes as well. If defusing sound through berms or plantings was possible, Mr. � 29 Lloyd advised that it would be the responsibility of the applicant for that mitigation as � 3:� needed. However, Mr. Lloyd clarified that sound mitigation was governed by the 13 i Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 13; Member Daire questioned whether existing homes adjacent to the property north of 1.>;; Farrington Street were shielded or would be updated for sound-proofing. 13=il Mr. Lloyd responded that he was not aware of anything that would trigger such a 13 � requirement as part of this redevelopment, since the State would not enforce that for 13�� existing homes. � 3� Based on the future study and findings by MnDOT for a possible noise barrier, Chair � 38 Boguszewski questioned whether that would be in the form of a mandate or simply a � 3G recommendation. 1�� Mr. Lloyd advised that he was not aware of the specific language under Minnesota Rules 14� as cited in the MnDOT letter or the ultimate affect of those rules, but anticipated there 1�?% were probably requirements in place to mitigate noise in order for the State to allow 1��3 construction to occur. However, Mr. Lloyd stated he did not know that it gave the City any 1�=<--! right to restrict the number of lots to ensure homes were further away from the highway �� or what enforceable mitigation there would be as a result. Page 19 of 22