pm_050202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Agenda for February 2, 2005 Page 6 of7 Jerome Wagner explained he is concerned with McCarrons lake, a ground water lake. Currently the lake is a surface water lake - majority of water drains in from surface area. McCarrons has lost 50% of its ground water. Each year the city should replace a percentage of that ground water through ground water recharge areas. McCarrons is an 80 acre lake within an 800 acre watershed. Thermal mitigation has not been a serious issue. With recharge engineering the lake could make up recharge lost since the 1970s. Brian, Elmer Street, suggested no north-south street and four to six units; 160 and 170 Elmer could be refaced using grant funds (HRA). Chair Mulder closed the hearing. Deb Bloom explained the cooperative requirement with Capitol Region Watershed. Member Traynor explained he was supportive of the plan. Density is always an issue, but what was expected on this site. Traffic is not sent through neighborhoods, but rather to Rice Street. Parking and water issues must be worked on. The materials and/style used should be improved to be consistent with the neighborhood. Member Bakeman explained how she appreciated the work with the neighborhood. Keep the building as open age as possible. Parking must be corrected. She supported the plan, with review by Capitol Region Watershed District. Density, watershed, parking and the Park Commission are concerns of Member Doherty. There are major challenges with the Watershed. The final product may be significantly different and supports reviewing this again after solutions to all the requirements. Member Traynor said there is not always enough information at the concept stage and conditions must be added to the decisions. Could the Planning Commission get a status report as the process unfolds? Chair Mulder said the Planning Commission can be frustrated with PUDs which are abandoned after the Planning Commission review. Can the process be changed? Motion: Member Bakeman moved, second by Member Boerigter, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, creating 7 town home lots and a single condominium lot. Ayes: (Roll call) 6, Traynor, Pust, Boerigter, Bakeman, Ipsen, Mulder Nays: 1, Doherty Motion carried. Motion: Member Bakeman moved, second by Member Boerigter, to recommend (upon City Council consideration of the final development plan) approval of the rezoning from R-1 single family residence District to Planned Unit Development with an underlying zoning of R-3, General Residence District for the condominium lot and R-6, Townhouse District for the town home lot. Ayes: (Roll call) 7, Traynor, Doherty, Post, Boerigter, Bakeman, Ipsen, Mulder Nays: 0 Motion carried. Motion: Member Bakeman moved, second by Member Pust, to recommend approval of the general concept development planned unit development plan, subject to the conditions stipulated in Section 8 of the project report dated February 2, 2005, with the addition of a clause in #8.3 requiring review by the Capitol Region Watershed District. Member Traynor proposed a friendly amendment in condition#8.2 for additional for style and material of the character of the neighborhood. Chair Mulder proposed a friendly amendment in condition #8.5 for additional landscaping design coordination by the developer with the neighborhood and wetland and the church regarding parking. The developer concurred with the motion and conditions. The motion with friendly amendments was approved. Aye: 7 Nay: 0 Motion carried. Chair Mulder noted the challenges of this site, noting it follows the neighborhood master plan. The parking is still a http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/councillplanning/minutes/2005/pm050202.htm 3/31/2005