My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 01312022
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2022
>
CCP 01312022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2022 2:06:22 PM
Creation date
1/27/2022 2:05:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/31/2022
Meeting Type
Regular
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.
/
346
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
RCA Attachment D <br />general this packet is complicated and raises a number of environmental issues. This <br />is a large area that has been undisturbed and certainly is part of the filtration system <br />for the lake. She thought reading the comments that are in the next item tonight, that <br />the interest on the part of Roseville residents is fairly strong in terms of protecting the <br />environment and protecting the wildlife. She thought for the packet to say that this <br />change does not have impacts on public safety and public health when it definitely <br />has a significant impact on the water and water quality in Lake Owasso, which is a <br />public water and not just for Roseville residents but for residents of the State, was <br />incorrect. She thought the City had to look at this very carefully overall and not <br />overlook it because it may belong to other Departments, Commissions, or permitting <br />agencies. <br /> <br />Member McGehee thought while those homes are actually not in a bad position right <br />along Victoria, the problem is that the City does not have any control if those <br />property owners, given the shape of the lots, wish to make their way down to the <br />water. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd indicated that was correct. <br /> <br />Member McGehee thought developing in this area at all is extremely problematic. <br />She would like to see more of these questions answered about how the lake and <br />lakeshore will be protected as well as tree preservation and a conservation easement <br />along the entire project with only one shared access to the lake. <br /> <br />Member Bjorum asked if the City required curb and gutter to be built along this <br />development on either side of Victoria. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd indicated the roadway standards that apply to a County Road like this <br />would definitely come from Ramsey County. He would have expected to see that as <br />a requirement if it were one and would have been communicated by the City Engineer <br />and included in the packet. He thought Victoria Street has been rebuilt fairly <br />recently. <br /> <br />Member Bjorum assumed the stormwater management that are shown on the plans is <br />basically the percentage required when utilizing the whole of the lots together <br />combined. He wondered if there was any requirement for that management system to <br />be on each individual lot or is it just a percentage and can be combined at any point. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd thought there was some flexibility in how that is implemented. <br /> <br />th <br />Mr. Dwayne Sikich, applicant, Builders Lot Group, 9531 West 78 Street, Eden <br />Prairie, indicated he was in agreement with the two conditions listed by staff and was <br />at the meeting to answer questions. He reviewed with the Commission the conditions <br />that have been imposed on this development. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble asked if there were any questions for the applicant from the <br />Commission. <br />Member Pribyl asked where the trail will be located on the west side of Victoria. <br />Page 9 of 65 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.