My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0222_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0222_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 2:14:46 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 2:06:14 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
778
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
1 <br />Bryan Lloyd <br />From:Bryan Lloyd <br />Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 11:21 AM <br />To:'Alison Cariveau' <br />Subject:RE: comments for PF20-029: McCarrons proposed development <br />Hi, Ms. Cariveau. <br /> <br />I’ll be sure your comments are included with the materials provided to the City Council for their review. With <br />respect to the specific questions you’ve raised, I can provide some answers here, numbered (more or less) as <br />you numbered your questions. <br />0.1 There isn’t a judgement call about who is “close enough” to receive give notifications about proposed <br />projects. Instead, the City Council has adopted a standard notification area with a radius of 500 feet <br />around the boundaries of a property proposed for development of this sort. The State of Minnesota has <br />established a minimum radius of 350 feet, but Roseville’s City Council has chosen a larger radius to <br />increase the potential for community members to engage with this sort of public process. There may be <br />no perfect notification area and there may be people outside of any given notification area who wish <br />they would have received the notifications. But this is a topic that the City Council is regularly asked to <br />consider and the Council has found this 500‐foot notification area to be acceptable. <br />1 The developer’s tree preservation plan materials incorrectly identify Cottonwood and Boxelder trees as <br />exempt, although the zoning code does exempt invasive species (e.g., buckthorn, certain species of elm, <br />etc.). The zoning code also exempts trees in places where roads, or sewer/water utilities, or storm water <br />management facilities will go. I suppose the theory for this locational exemption, if you will, is that a <br />developer is really only proposing to build the homes and it is the City (and perhaps other regulating <br />agencies) that require the developer to manage storm water, provide streets, and so on. Obviously, the <br />City could choose not to allow such locational exemptions, but this is another thing that the Council has <br />considered regularly and has found to be a reasonable compromise. I should note that in call cases, <br />exemptions don’t figure into the tree removal/preservation calculations; while a developer may not <br />have to replace exempt trees, they also don’t get any credit for the fact those trees are there in the first <br />place. <br />2 If I’ve correctly understood the perspective of Public Works staff, I believe they have found it prudent to <br />reserve the use of such crosswalk improvements for certain circumstances (perhaps as more significant <br />intersections). Whatever their actual criteria might be, they are keenly focused on the safety of those <br />trail users and believe that safety can be ensured by improvements that may not include flashing lights <br />and so forth. Traffic speed may, indeed, be a problem, but that is something of a separate issue from the <br />safe location and design of a crosswalk. Enforcing the speed limit, lowering speed limits, and <br />implementing various design techniques (like allowing on‐street parking or narrowing the driving lanes <br />at intersections and other pedestrian crossings) are among the ways that motorists can be encouraged <br />or compelled to drive more slowly. <br /> <br />I hope these responses are helpful, and please let me know if you have additional questions or comments to <br />share. <br />Bryan <br />__________________________________________ <br />Bryan Lloyd | Senior Planner <br />651‐792‐7073 <br /> <br />From: Alison Cariveau <br />Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 10:40 AM <br />RCA Attachment D <br />Page 14 of 51
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.