2015-06-03_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Page 3 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the current drainageeasement 94 was between the current property owner and City of Roseville; as well would future 95 easements involve the property owner(s) and City. 96 Member Daire referenced the staff report indicating that the existing home was one of the 97 oldest homes in Roseville, and asked that staff address that in more detail. 98 As noted in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd reported that the home located at 311 County Road 99 B was along the Heritage Trail defined by the Roseville Historical Society that identified 100 area historic homes.Mr. Lloyd clarified that this was basically an interest versus a 101 regulatory list, and even though not considered insignificant that the property was located 102 along the trail, its historical designation on that local trail was not something the City 103 could regulate.Mr. Lloyd also noted that the windmill on the subject property site, having 104 created some concern with its preservation in the previous preliminary plat, was currently 105 being addressed by the applicant in working with the property owners on the southside 106 of County Road B to relocate versus demolish it as redevelopment occurs. 107 Member Daire asked if the applicant was intent to demolish that old home. 108 Mr. Lloyd responded that plans for demolition were his understanding as it was on the lot 109 line or near enough to the lot boundary that it would require relocation.Given the age and 110 condition of the structure, Mr. Lloyd advised that he was not sure how feasible that would 111 be cost-wise and/or in re-using the structure, allowing the applicant to recover their 112 expenses.However, since the Roseville Historical Society is now aware of 113 redevelopment plans, and the existing structures on site, staff anticipated they would be 114 coordinating any physical or photographic preservation of the property as they desired. 115 Specific to a proposed sound barrier along Highway 36, and from discussions held with 116 the previous preliminary plat proposal in 2014, Member Daire sought clarification on 117 whether or not nearby residents preferences for noise mitigation had been considered or 118 if a sound barrier was part of future plans, and questioned how itsconstruction might be 119 financed. 120 Mr. Lloyd responded that the applicant was not required to construct a sound barrier to 121 the standards that would be required by MnDOT, even though interest may have been 122 peaked in doing so.In discussions earlier today with the applicant, Mr. Lloyd stated that 123 the applicant planned to build the house closest to the highway with a higher level of 124 insulation to mitigate noise concerns with highway traffic.However, Mr. Lloyd noted it 125 remained to be seen whether that would perform well enough to address the noise and 126 would serve to determine whether that additional level of insulation would be applied to 127 other homes as well.If defusing sound through berms or plantings was possible, Mr. 128 Lloyd advised that it would be the responsibility of the applicant for that mitigation as 129 needed.However, Mr. Lloyd clarified that sound mitigation was governed by the 130 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 131 Member Daire questioned whether existing homes adjacent to the property north of 132 Farrington Street were shielded or would be updated for sound-proofing. 133 Mr. Lloyd responded that he was not aware of anything that would trigger such a 134 requirement as part of this redevelopment,since the State would not enforce that for 135 existing homes. 136 Based on the future study and findings by MnDOT for a possible noise barrier, Chair 137 Boguszewski questioned whether that would be in the form of a mandate or simply a 138 recommendation. 139 Mr. Lloyd advised that he was not aware of the specific language under Minnesota Rules 140 as cited in the MnDOT letter or the ultimate affect of those rules, but anticipated there 141 were probably requirements in place to mitigate noise in order for the State to allow 142 construction to occur.However, Mr. Lloyd stated he did not know that it gave the City any 143 right to restrict the number of lots to ensure homes were further away from the highway 144 or what enforceable mitigation there would be as a result. 145