CC_Minutes_2016_0711 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 11, 2016 Page 32 the size and character of neighborhood lots were important, but not if accommo- dated appropriately; and if that was the case, he would have no major objections to having a few more neighbors. Joel Cheney, 2172 Acorn Road Speaking in general, Mr. Cheney noted he had no specific comments to either subdivision proposal being considered tonight. In moving to Roseville from White Bear Lake in 2002, Mr. Cheney noted he had not considered property in other suburbs such as Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center or Crystal, instead prefer- ring the character found in this Roseville neighborhood with large treed lots, windy roads, proximity to both downtowns, and other amenities making Roseville immensely attractive to his family. Mr. Cheney stated that combination of charm and efficiency and convenience was immensely attractive to him. However, the direction the city seemed to be taking with this type of subdivision in the commu- nity seemed to be moving toward big box stores, smaller lots, broader tax base, and trees resistant to disease, opining that it was turning Roseville into another community like Brooklyn Center, and he didn't' like that trend. Mr. Cheney urged the City Council to look at the broader picture and other suburbs preserving larger lots sizes and their character. While not trying to appear selfish, Mr. Chen- ey noted there were benefits to Roseville from preserving these types of amenities and asked that they consider that perspective. Lisa Koland, Applicant and Property Owner at 1926 Gluek Lane In response to public comments, Ms. Koland addressed several issues. In the staff report, Ms. Koland highlighted lines 88 — 104 specifically addressing some of those raised concerns as part of staff s review. Ms. Koland noted the new parcel would be subject to city codes standards, including grading, stormwater manage- ment and tree preservation. Specific to drainage, Ms. Koland referenced line 98 addressing that drainage in some detail. As noted, Ms. Koland referenced the flooding resulting from the larger system and not residential development itself. At the time their project pulls a grading permit, Ms. Koland noted there would be significant review to ensure compliance with code. Ms. Koland assured her neighbors that their intent was to continue living along- side the divefided parcel, and therefore it was also important that there was no flooding issue. Specific to their property as it currently stands, Ms. Koland noted they experienced no catastrophic flooding from rainwater, and it seemed to be centered in another area of Gluek Lane. While their neighbor Mr. McLoon stated the area proposed for subdivision and development was completely tree filled, Ms. Koland clarified that it was not, and those trees proposed for removal were Cottonwood trees, with the remainder of the parcel formerly holding a large garden space, no longer in place.