2006_1113_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts of the DRAFT November 1,2006 Roseviiie Planning Commission meeting INs. Bloom reviewed, from discussions at a previous meeting when the original PUD was �eviewed, the standard trip estimates, based on the standard traffic engineer's manual (ITE) relatee� to the average number of daily trips (10) generated per day for a single-family home, ;�� advised that both roadwayswere had sufficientcapacity. r1t the request of Chair Traynar, Ms. Bloom addressed lighting on Acom Road, another r;onc�rn raised by Mr. Emerson. Ms. Bloom advised that, in previous discussions, the neighborh�ood consensus was that they didn't want street lighting; but that the City was open Fo reconsidering installation of a City paid and maintained street light at intersections andlor curves, with the 100% support from all property owners within 100' of the proposed location, ,�nd upon receipt of a signed petition processed through the Public Works Department. �itjr staff had provided, for Commission information, a Bench Handout representing an �-xcerpt of the Roseville City Council minutes for September 25, 2006, where they �iiscussed, and ultimately denied (312vote) the PUD application. Mr. Ramalingam Mr. Ramalingam questioned whether his previously-agreed-upon approval for a drainage �SOnd as part of his property for construction of a private road, was now similar for the �Sroposed public roadway; opining that he wasn't sure he was interested in allowing drainage � his property anymore from this development. Mr. Ramalingam also questioned if parking woulc� 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. 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 rx7 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 ta 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 andlor a rain garden. Ms. Bloom, in addressing the parking question, noted that, standards dictate that no parking was allowed on any roadway narrower than finrenty-eightfeet (28'). Chair iraynar noted s�a�''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 �e street andlor intersection, which were addressed by staff. Mr. Boryczki reviewed his historical perspective of the 1995 construction of Acom Road opining that it was the smallest road in Roseville, and was sized in accordance to input frorn property owners so as to diminish impact to the neighborhood. Ms. Boryczki opined thak 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 beer� allowed to be built this small. Mr. Boryczki questioned staff's actual review of the plans as submitted; and opined that staff "alwavs approved them."