2015-09-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 Page 12 As far as stormwater management was addressed, Mr. Nelson advised that they would 557 continue to work with the city and watershed district, with the district already having 558 provided conditional approval for their proposal. Mr. Nelson noted this involved a series 559 of ponds similar to the preliminary plat application materials and staging water collection 560 at various infiltration points before getting into the existing wetland area to the south. Mr. 561 Nelson assured everyone that the developer’s intent was to directly address that 562 sedimentation through plant cleaning the stormwater before it arrived at the wetland area. 563 Ann Berry, 1059 Woodhill Drive 564 As a resident in this location for fifty-two years and observing the many changes to the 565 area, Ms. Berry noted her enjoyment during those years in viewing the natural area 566 directly south of her property. Ms. Berry expressed appreciation that the access on 567 Woodhill Drive would not be directly across from her property, but asked for further 568 clarification on the access points. 569 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd clarified access points for the proposed 570 development in relationship for Ms. Berry. 571 Ms. Berry expressed concern with the current number of school bus stops and children 572 along Woodhill Drive, even though it provided a wonderful neighborhood for aging in 573 place, but asked that the developer and city be aware of and responsive to that safety 574 concern. 575 Ms. Berry expressed appreciation for the efforts to save trees, and while realizing 576 redevelopment was inevitable, she noted the fill – road debris – on site and past 577 experience with illegal dumping and her many phone calls and staff responses in 578 regulating and enforcing those activities. 579 While recognizing this development would result in a significant change to the 580 neighborhood, she hoped the developer would provide an attractive site, with well-581 controlled traffic, and that they remain cognizant of children and their safety in that 582 neighborhood. 583 Tongue in cheek, Ms. Berry suggested it would be ideal if the facility was built in time for 584 her to simply move across the street when it came time for her to move from her single-585 family home. 586 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that typically a traffic study 587 would use vehicle counters to study raw traffic data and how traffic was disbursing from 588 the area during morning and evening peak hours. However, Mr. Paschke advised that he 589 was not sure it would specifically address school bus traffic. 590 Benna Sydow, 2750 N Oxford Street 591 Mr. Sydow questioned the number of surface area parking spaces in the development. 592 Mr. Nelson responded that approximately fifty were anticipated, similar to the number 593 offered in the garage area; with 6-8 spaces on the Lexington Avenue side, and the 594 remaining located on the Woodhill Drive/Oxford Street side. 595 Mr. Sydow expressed his concern with garbage trucks and access to the site; as well as 596 accommodating sidewalks for pedestrians in the area, especially given the number of 597 children in the neighborhood and accessing Central park. Mr. Sydow opined that such an 598 accommodation as part of this development would be greatly appreciated to get 599 pedestrians off the street and improve safety. 600 Mr. Sydow further opined that this type of project is encouraging for Roseville and the 601 need for senior housing; and expressed his appreciation of the possibility of being able to 602 simply move down the street when the time came to consider other housing options. 603 Dwight Gange, 2723 Oxford Street 604 Mr. Gange sought clarification as to the traffic study and whether it looked at foot traffic or 605 just that of vehicles. 606