My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 10:34:29 AM
Creation date
10/6/2016 9:31:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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 City Council Meeting <br />Monday, September 12, 2016 <br />Page 15 <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd stated a petition in opposition was submitted by several of the nearby <br />homeowners. That opposition is in recognition of concern for storm water and <br />preferring no new residential subdivisions until the storm water situation is re- <br />solved so it does not make an existing problem worse. He referenced the staff re- <br />port section addressing that scenario as the application seeks to mitigate the storm <br />water that would be created by a new residential development on the new parcel. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd noted prohibiting subdivisions and new home development would min- <br />imize impervious coverage but it would not eliminate impervious coverage im- <br />mediately in this neighborhood or in the storm water subwatershed that leads to <br />storm water pipes backing up in this neighborhood. He explained the benefit of a <br />proposal like this is the possibility of attaching a condition of approval that does <br />mitigate the additional storm water versus other possible improvements that don’t <br />require permits or do need permits issued if there is no codified reason to deny. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd stated given this information and despite the opposition to the subdivi- <br />sion request, Planning and Public Works staff does recommend approval of the <br />proposed subdivision subject to a series of conditions as listed in the staff report. <br /> <br />At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd read the list of four recommended condi- <br />tions and explained the need for each. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe referenced the communication from a resident asking why this is back <br />before the Council as it was previously denied and explained there is not a Code <br />requirement that you cannot reapply. Mayor Roe stated the Council may want to <br />look at that provision during the update of the Subdivision Code as in other sec- <br />tions there is prohibition from making essentially the same proposal within a peri- <br />od of time after a denial unless changes are made that meet the findings of the de- <br />nial. He noted in this case, it can probably be argued that even without the re- <br />quirement for a timeframe, the applicant is contending they have met the require- <br />ments of the denial. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe acknowledged two communications from residents as contained in the <br />meeting packet, one from Carl and Sherry Willis and another from Brad and Jan <br />Peterson. In addition, the Council received a bench handout from the applicant, <br />Mr. Koland, clarifying the numbers in a previous communication. <br /> <br />Councilmember Willmus referenced the Public Works Engineer Department <br />memorandum and asked about the location of the approximate 2 percent of the <br />new lot that would be located in the floodway. Mr. Freihammer displayed a slide <br />that was based off the Ramsey County aerial and pointed out the far east corner. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee asked whether Basin 1 is not within the wetland. Mr. <br />Freihammer indicated it is conceptual in nature and very close but depending on <br />how it is constructed it would or would not impact. Councilmember McGehee <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.