pm_051005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for October 5, 2005Page 3 of 11 Member White asked what are the options if this is denied? What are the changes that could occur in the future? Chair Traynor noted that the Planning Commission would have to create 'findings' to support why to deny the purpose. Member White asked if the character of the neighborhood could be the basis for denial. (No--not a requirement of the code) Member Doherty asked for clarification regarding tree preservation. The City does not have a tree preservation code to prevent tree removal. Mr. Kuhbander asked if he could subdivide his property similarly. This subdivision will destroy the neighborhood. Terry Foster, 969 Parker Avenue, said cars entering or leaving will have lights shining in his windows. He said he was in favor of the project. Mr. Anderson could propose a PUD with more density. This project will only have 10 single family homes. Two conditions are needed. 1) a landscape plan to shield the car lights from Foster's bedroom. 2) change the name of the street to 'Park Place'. There could be, as an alternative, rental units which would impact the neighborhood, and 3) a landscape plan that reduces impacts to the south side of the site. Single family homes will bring positives: kids and families. Michael Perniel, 1015 Shryer Ave., explained that the natural drainage is to the wetland near his house. The surface water is his concern. Does the plan show the water management plan? (Not at the time). Does the preliminary plat allow for a grading plan? He said there are three rain gardens/infiltration areas on private property. Who will maintain these? Who will do the maintenance on these areas? City Engineer Deb Bloom explained that the plan must meet the surface water plan of the City and the watershed district. Runoff has to be equal to or less than the current situation. Maintenance is an issue that must be reviewed by the City and Watershed. The preliminary Plat does not meet the surface water management plan at this time but will be improved through the process. The public street plan is not at a level for construction at this time. It is possible to meet the city requirements and best management practices as part of the final approval. Mr. Perniel demonstrated the increased runoff in the Southwest corner of the site. He said the utility plan shows a 10' PVC pipe from the Southeast corner to the infiltration/rain garden. He does not want additional water on his low backyard. The rain garden design is not complete at this time and more effort must be done to meet the requirements of runoff. Deb Bloom explained the need for a hydro-cad model of the runoff, showing the existing rate of runoff and the proposed runoff cannot exceed the existing rate and volume control and Parker Avenue capacity must be capable of handling this water. Terry Smitz, 1023 Shryer, expressed concern with the drainage. The new version will direct more water to his property, rather than less. Will the developer place funds in escrow to determine whether drainage will work over time? (The public improvement contract does include an escrow.) A letter of credit is required for the project--it is not released until the city is assured that the project does work. There is also a 2-year warranty after city accepts the improvement. Aaron Gordon, 1027 Parker Ave., expressed concern about car lights at night. His backyard has no neighbors. The backyards will have houses 10 feet from the rear lot line. Build houses along Parker, not in the rear (south) yards. This will ruin the backyards. There will be no privacy. Trees along the bordering lots may be damaged or die. The drainage plan will kill his trees. Will the developer protect Gordon's trees and will he replace it when/if it dies? Thomas Paschke said the goal of the grading and tree preservation is to not grade and stay away from property boundaries as best as possible. Member Pust asked what our authority is to have the developer meet requirements as per the tree/landscape plan? Mr. Kuhbander, 1016 Parker (and south of 1024 Parker), noted the pond is now full. http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2005/pm051005.htm12/27/2005