My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-09-02_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-09-02_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2015 11:32:10 AM
Creation date
10/16/2015 11:32:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 <br />Page 9 <br />Mr. Boryczka noted that this subdivision has been opposed by the majority of neighbors <br />403 <br />in the immediate area; and personally opined that it would ruin the neighborhood and <br />404 <br />negate any benefits. Mr. Boryczka opined that this was a lot of money for these proposed <br />405 <br />lots, noting that he had his corner lot for sale for many years, and it remained so. Mr. <br />406 <br />Boryczka strongly suggested that this is not an appropriate plan for this area. <br />407 <br />Evan Thomas, 2177 County Road B <br />408 <br />Mr. Thomas expressed his concern with this proposal, particularly with the magnitude of <br />409 <br />any additional runoff unless the southwest corner of the lot would actually address that <br />410 <br />drainage, of which he remained skeptical. Mr. Thomas noted that both his property and <br />411 <br />that of Mr. Cross that shared a common border were very low and with very little grade at <br />412 <br />this point flowed toward the catch basin on Marion, a distance of in excess of 200’. Mr. <br />413 <br />Thomas noted that the property to the west of his property has been diked on all four <br />414 <br />sides, but in some heavy rain events, he still experienced water in some areas on his lot, <br />415 <br />and he had observed water in the middle of the Cross lot between their tennis court and <br />416 <br />pool. Mr. Thomas noted his lingering doubt as to whether or not in a worst case condition, <br />417 <br />the southwest corner destination and along the undulating slope across his lot with a one <br />418 <br />foot slope would still get to Marion Street before significantly impacting his lot. Even <br />419 <br />though he had no structures in that area, Mr. Thomas expressed concern that it would <br />420 <br />create more of a dilemma for Mr. Cross and seemed to him to represent a loose end yet <br />421 <br />in this proposal. <br />422 <br />Janet Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road <br />423 <br />Ms. Romanowski spoke in support of the written comments provided by her and her <br />424 <br />husband, reiterating their strong opposition to Mr. Mueller’s project. Mr. Romanowski <br />425 <br />noted that in the past the neighborhood had collected a petition with thirty signatures from <br />426 <br />the neighbors, all in opposition, and questioned why Mr. Mueller kept pushing this plan on <br />427 <br />his neighbors over and over and over again. Mr. Romanowski stated that the neighbors <br />428 <br />were taxpayers too, and given their strong opposition to this proposed project, should <br />429 <br />have a voice as well. <br />430 <br />Member Cunningham sought clarification that the petition had been submitted prior to Mr. <br />431 <br />Mueller’s submission of this revised plan. <br />432 <br />Ms. Romanowski responded that while this was true, a similar petition could be submitted <br />433 <br />again for part of the record since the neighbors continued to feel the same opposition. <br />434 <br />Mr. S. Ramalingam <br />435 <br />Mr. Ramalingam questioned if a new petition was desired by the Commission every time <br />436 <br />a new plan came forward. <br />437 <br />Member Cunningham clarified that she was not asking that, simply noting that there had <br />438 <br />been thirty signatures on a petition regarding the previous plan submitted by Mr. Mueller, <br />439 <br />with significant changes having been made in that original plan at the City Council’s <br />440 <br />direction, which caused her to question if some of the previous concerns of neighbors <br />441 <br />had been satisfied in this latest plan. <br />442 <br />Mr. Ramalingam responded that, if needed the neighbors could go ahead and get <br />443 <br />signatures on a new petition for submission. <br />444 <br />Paul Romanowski <br />445 <br />If a petition was needed, Mr. Romanowski opined that he could get another petition with <br />446 <br />even more signatures, since he had only been able to contact thirty neighbors for the <br />447 <br />past petition, but could get more now and produce it once again. <br />448 <br />Member Cunningham reiterated that she was only seeking information as to the same <br />449 <br />people having signed the previous petition remained opposed to this updated plan, and <br />450 <br />was not asking for submission of another petition. <br />451 <br />Mr. Romanowski opined that those signatories remained opposed and yet more as well. <br />452 <br />With no one else appearing, Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. <br />453 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.