2015-08-05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 Page 15 Member Gitzen stated the neighbors had brought forward good comments, and thanked 711 Mr. Nelson for immediately responding to those concerns and comments; and offered his 712 support of the project. 713 Member Bull expressed appreciation for the good information received and organization 714 of the presentation and public comments; and offered his support of the project. 715 Finding himself generally supportive of the idea, Member Daire offered his support of the 716 project as well. 717 Chair Boguszewski agreed with comments of his colleagues, and as noted by Member 718 Stellmach something much worse than this proposal on this HDR-zoned parcel could 719 occur. Chair Boguszewski noted that this addressed the needs for additional senior 720 housing in the community, and – while not a determining factor – it further met the long- 721 range goals of the community. As long as additional safeguards are added to the 722 conditions as previously discussed, Chair Boguszewski stated he was comfortable in 723 supporting the proposal. 724 Regarding resident comments regarding tree replacement, Chair Boguszewski noted that 725 while suggestions for planting trees along the Woodhill Drive boulevard or on private 726 property may be a future possibility, under current code, the developer was required to 727 replace them on site depending on caliper calculations. Chair Boguszewski noted that 728 again the City Council was in the process of commission a task force or committee to 729 look at the current tree preservation process, rules and regulations; and one of the many 730 ideas talked about going forward was the option for replacing trees off-site. However, 731 Chair Boguszewski noted that, as written today, the City’s tree preservation ordinance 732 unfortunately did not allow for that option, but a future concept of a tree canopy for the 733 overall good of Roseville, and ability to satisfy that replanting elsewhere in the community 734 may be a recommendation. 735 On that note, Mr. Paschke advised that the September Planning Commission agenda 736 tentatively scheduled a presentation of the current tree preservation ordinance and initial 737 draft for an update, which may shed light on some of those very issues. 738 Member Daire noted the creative input provided by neighbors tonight in replacing aging 739 or dying trees on private property using the tree preservation requirements, even though 740 admitting he didn’t know the legal or other ramifications for such an option. Member Daire 741 noted the other comment suggesting separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic along a 742 high volume road such as Lexington Avenue or Woodhill Drive had some validity. 743 Member Daire questioned if Woodhill was still a county road or had been turned back to 744 the city. Member Daire opined that separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic as volumes 745 rise in general throughout the city was a good idea deserving of future consideration. 746 MOTION 747 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to 748 the City Council approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT dated August 3, 749 2015 for Cherrywood Pointe at Lexington, generally comprising the property at 750 2668 – 2688 Lexington Avenue; based on the comments, findings, and conditions 751 contained the project report dated August 5, 2015; amended as follows: 752  Revise Condition C as presented in the staff report to state that “The applicant 753 shall pay park dedication fees in the amount of $3,500 per unit.” 754  New Condition: “The applicant shall complete a traffic study for this project. 755 The traffic study will be reviewed by and any required mitigation efforts 756 approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.” 757  n New Condition: “The applicant is hereby made aware that any future variace 758 requests will be evaluated on their individual merits; and this conditioned 759 preliminary plat approval does not nor will have any impact on that variance 760 process, if needed, in the future.” 761