pm_061101 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 4 concerns. City Engineer Debra Bloom Ms. Bloom addressed issues related to Acorn Road, rebuilt in the 1990’s at a twenty-four foot (24’) wide street face to face, based on minimum City design standards, and as requested by neighborhood residents at that time. Ms. Bloom noted that Little Oak Road is proposed as a twenty-six foot (26’) wide roadway, also meeting City design standards; and that all provisions of the proposed plat would have City Code requirements to be met, as would all proposed plats coming before staff for review and recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council Mr. Emerson opined that there should be speed limit signs on Acorn Road; and reiterated his concerns for public safety, as well as opposition to additional development with more homes in the neighborhood, needing to access Acorn Road. Ms. Bloom noted that speed limit signs were a separate process, and that she would forward Mr. Emerson’s comments and concerns to the Public Works Director for review by the Safety Committee. Ms. Bloom further noted that, when a roadway is not signed, State Statute dictated that the speed limit was determined to be 30 miles per hour. Ms. Bloom advised that the City attempted to avoid sign clutter on roadways as much as possible, but that if the neighborhood were interested, the City could perform a speed count to establish if speeding was a concern, and provide driver education regarding speed safety if the residents were interested, and recommended that the neighborhood direct a letter to the Public Works Director outlining that request. Ms. Bloom noted, however, that speed concerns were not a part of tonight’s consideration of a Preliminary Plat approval, based on land use determinants. Chair Traynor asked staff to review their research regarding traffic impacts to Acorn Road and the new proposed road with three (3) additional homes. Ms. Bloom reviewed, from discussions at a previous meeting when the original PUD was reviewed, the standard trip estimates, based on the standard traffic engineer’s manual (ITE) related to the average number of daily trips (10) generated per day for a single-family home, and advised that both roadways were had sufficient capacity. At the request of Chair Traynor, Ms. Bloom addressed lighting on Acorn Road, another concern raised by Mr. Emerson. Ms. Bloom advised that, in previous discussions, the neighborhood consensus was that they didn’t want street lighting; but that the City was open to reconsidering installation of a City paid and maintained street light at intersections and/or curves, with the 100% support from all property owners within 100’ of the proposed location, and upon receipt of a signed petition processed through the Public Works Department. City staff had provided, for Commission information, a Bench Handout representing an excerpt of the Roseville City Council minutes for September 25, 2006, where they discussed, and ultimately denied (3/2 vote) the PUD application. Mr. Ramalingam Mr. Ramalingam questioned whether his previously-agreed-upon approval for a drainage pond as part of his property for construction of a private road, was now similar for the proposed public roadway; opining that he wasn’t sure he was interested in allowing drainage on his property anymore from this development. Mr. Ramalingam also questioned if parking would be allowed on the public street. Mr. Paschke advised that the new plan is similar to the previous plan, other than for the road design, easement, and right-of-way areas, and a slight modification in lot size.