Laserfiche WebLink
RCA Attachment D <br />than a dedication of cash in lieu of land which can be used for acquisition of land <br />where parks are needed and can be used for improvements nearby where those <br />improvements are called for in the plan. <br /> <br />Member Pribyl knew the footprints shown on the drawings received are not <br />necessarily the final ones but if these are relatively accurate, it looks like currently the <br />plat shows that all of the homes would be outside of what is required by the City or <br />Watershed in terms of wetland protection. These are not encroaching on the wetland <br />area or even on the setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd indicated that was correct. He showed the drawing and explained where <br />the homes are to be located and the setback requirements. <br /> <br />Member Kruzel indicated there is concern about the boat traffic in that area because <br />the lake is narrow there. She knew the City cannot do much but for the folks that live <br />in that area, the wakes may be an issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd indicated the City does not have the ability to regulate what happens on the <br />public water. The amount of boat traffic has its own ramifications and issues as well <br />as the kinds of boat traffic. He explained it is the StateÓs role to have regulations <br />about that and to do enforcement. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble explained somewhere in the documents that most of the driveways <br />would have turn arounds. She noted this is close to where she lives and driving down <br />Victoria there is a curve and can get busy. She thought this would be preferable if <br />this moves forward. She also saw that the County was recommending no parking be <br />posted on this stretch of Victoria and wondered if that would go before the City <br />Council for action. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd did not think that would be a part of the CityÓs action. It may be <br />something that is incorporated into the public improvement contract since it is within <br />the public roadway. He explained with respect to the turnarounds, that is in fact, a <br />Zoning requirement for Roseville. Any new driveways and homes on County roads <br />like this need to have that turnaround built into the driveway within the property. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble did not think there would be the ability for individual docks at each <br />single-family home parcel and all of the dock access would be on the shared access <br />parcel. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd believed that the plan is that the lots in block one would likely have their <br />own docks and the City cannot prevent them from being put in. That would leave the <br />shared facility for the homes across the street. <br /> <br />Member McGehee agreed with Commissioner SchaffhausenÓs remarks. She <br />explained after the last McCarrons meeting she was not sure if this is another case <br />where the DNR is suggesting the City make some limitations but there is no contact <br />with the DNR. She noted she had a call in to both the Public Works person who <br />worked on the watershed as well as the DNR hydrologist for the East Metro and she <br />has not had the time to get a call back to get this information. She found that in <br />Page 8 of 65 <br /> <br />