pm_061101 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 5 Ms. Bloom advised that she was in ongoing discussions with Mr. Mueller and his engineer to address the requirements of the City for drainage, water quality and rate control; but that no drainage plan had been approved at this time, and they would need Mr. Ramalingam’s permission to cross his property (i.e., easement) prior to proceeding. Ms. Bloom noted that the drainage management plan would need to meet potential flooding issues, and satisfy Engineering Department requirements; and meet any public easements required prior to proceeding with permit issuance to proceed. Ms. Bloom advised that there were numerous options for the developer to consider as part of the drainage plan, including an underground chamber system and/or a rain garden. Ms. Bloom, in addressing the parking question, noted that, standards dictate that no parking was allowed on any roadway narrower than twenty-eight feet (28’). Chair Traynor noted staff’s recommended condition 5.3 related to approval for grading, drainage and storm water management. Gary Boryczka, 2250 Acorn Road Mr. Boryczka had several questions regarding the location of the proposed driveways to the street and/or intersection, which were addressed by staff. Mr. Boryczka reviewed his historical perspective of the 1995 construction of Acorn Road, opining that it was the smallest road in Roseville, and was sized in accordance to input from property owners so as to diminish impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Boryczka opined that there was no expectation at that time of the magnitude of development off this small road, and if intentions were known at the time of that decision, the road wouldn’t have been allowed to be built this small. Mr. Boryczka questioned staff’s actual review of the plans as submitted; and opined that staff “always approved them.” preliminary plans Mr. Paschke advised that staff supported the as submitted, and following no final plats or plans careful and detailed review; however, noted that had been presented or approved at this time. Mr. Paschke noted that the City’s review process by applicable departments and personnel had been provided; and a review of City Code currently in force, with direct correlation that requirements had been met. Mr. Boryczka questioned which grading plan, “A” or “B,” would be used. Mr. Paschke advised that, at this time, the plans were conceptual (Preliminary) in nature, and the applicant would be required to provide a final drainage plan to meet all requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District, and City Code; and that the final grading plan may be a combination of both, one or none of those submitted, depending on additional findings and Preliminary review. Mr. Paschke reiterated that the Planning Commission was reviewing a Platconceptual in a proposal. Mr. Boryczka expressed concern with the proposed curbing indicated, and questioned water run-off. Ms. Bloom reiterated her statement that, as a condition of approval, the applicant would need to meet storm water management requirements; and that the final information had yet to be completed by the applicant’s engineer, and presented to staff for review and approval. Mr. Boryczka continued to dispute details of the proposed plat, including how the homes would be addressed and his presentation of the preliminary plat to the U.S. Postmaster.