2015-09-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 11 be found from dropping elevations and hard cover from new residences and their 507 driveways. 508 Mr. Culver responded that the majority appeared to be set up to flow adequately 509 depending on the location of future downspout locations, anticipating that one proposed 510 lot may prove problematic flowing east as it currently does. 511 Commissioner Discussion and Position Statements 512 For the benefit of newer Commissioners, Chair Boguszewski noted his vote to 513 recommend approval the last time a similar proposal came before the Planning 514 Commission and restated his rationale for that support. Basically, even though there was 515 a lot going on with this subdivision, Chair Boguszewski expressed his faith in the City 516 Engineer’s assessment that the stormwater management would be no worse with the 517 proposal than if nothing was done. Chair Boguszewski opined that the tree situation was 518 what it was. From his personal perspective, Chair Boguszewski opined that it didn’t come 519 down to petitions or neighbors, but what a private property owner could do with his own 520 property and how that affected the immediate neighborhood. Given that perspective, 521 Chair Boguszewski noted that a lot of the concerns crossed that line, and since beauty 522 was in the eye of the beholder, there were good and bad perspectives to be considered. 523 Based on his own role as a Planning Commissioner, Chair Boguszewski stated that he 524 weighted his decision-making more heavily on the technical side, using the existing tree 525 ordinance as an example and steps taken by the developer to meet it whether it seemed 526 stark or not, he could not say “no” because he didn’t particularly want this developer to 527 move or remove trees, didn’t seem appropriate. Chair Boguszewski stated that he could 528 not stop a project because he didn’t like a particular action, even though if he was a 529 neighbor he might wish to prevent the development from happening or even sign a 530 petition. However, as a Planning Commissioner, Chair Boguszewski stated that he felt 531 the issues had been addressed, especially so in this latest plan in response to the City 532 Council’s direction; and therefore advised that he would vote to recommend approval of 533 this Preliminary Plat as he had done with the previous plat, having provided his rationale 534 upfront as to why he supported the subdivision. 535 Member Stellmach expressed his appreciation of the comments and concerns brought 536 forward in writing and in person by neighbors, and stated that he shared some of those 537 concerns especially regarding tree preservation, since he preferred to remove none of 538 them. However, from the perspective of the Planning Commission, Member Stellmach 539 stated that his decision needed to be based on whether or not this proposed Preliminary 540 Plat complied with City Code, and finding that it did, offered his support in recommending 541 its approval. 542 Member Murphy thanked the neighbors for sharing their comments with the Commission. 543 As he and Member Bull reviewed the maps for this subdivision, Mr. Murphy noted lot 544 sizes on County Road B, Acorn Road and Marion Road were all relatively smaller than 545 these proposed lots, with getting larger moving north as noted by Mr. Mueller regarding 546 previous subdivisions of neighboring properties. Mr. Mueller concurred with Chair 547 Boguszewski that a revised tree preservation ordinance was not yet available, 548 necessitating the need to seek compliance with the existing ordinance. While being 549 sympathetic to the concerns expressed by neighbors, Member Murphy advised that he 550 could not find a sufficient reason to vote against this proposal. 551 As a new member of the Commission, Member Bull advised that he had reviewed the 552 technical part as addressed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and revised Zoning Code 553 regarding lot sizes and design specifications, as well as reading the respective purpose 554 statements of those documents to protect citizens and allow their safe enjoyment of their 555 homes, the character of neighborhoods, and other factors outlined by and for Roseville 556 citizens, all an important part of the picture. Member Bull also expressed appreciation for 557 the written and verbal input provide by neighbors. Member Bull admitted he could not call 558 the proposed tree plan a preservation plan, but considered it more of a removal plan, 559 which would certainly affect the neighborhood with that removal and replacement with 560