2011_0321_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

651 e. The 15-foot-wide pathway easement leading between the proposed Fern wood Circle 62 cul-de-sac and the existing pathway along Lexington Avenue should be centered on 6'3 the pathway. &4 f. Restricted access should be dedicated on the plat along the Josephine Road and 65 Lexington Avenue rights-of-way. 66 g. Several details related to the storm sewer and sanitary sewer infrastructure need to be 6 7' further adjusted and the applicant should be required to enter into the necessary 68 Public Improvement Contract as part of the approval of the FINAL PLAT. The applicant 69 is aware of these issues and is working with Public Works staff to resolve them for 7'0 the FINAL PLAT submission. 7'1 5.3 Based on the typical traffic patterns of one-family dwellings like those associated with 7'2 the proposed plat,, full development of the property would be expected to add 7`3 approximately 268 vehicle trips per day to the nearby road network. Roseville's 74 consulting traffic engineers have analyzed the proposed plat and determined that the 7'5 resulting development would not affect the nearby roadways and intersections enough 7'6 necessitate off-site mitigation improvements like turn lanes, traffic lights, or new 7 . .... 7' roadways; the study report is included with this staff report as Attachment E. The City 7'8 Engineer notes that are items in the study that are not being recommended as conditions 7'9 at this time. 8o 6.0 PUBLIC COMMENT 81 6.1 Planning Division staff has received several emails and phone calls about the proposed 82 PRELIMINARY PLAT from nearby property owners; the emailed comments received up to 8'3 the time this report was prepared are included as Attachment E. None of the comments &4 have suggested any great concern about the proposal in concept, but several strongly 85 encourage the developer and the City to be careful to adequately address storm water 86 issues on the property. Many comments also indicate an interest in seeing County Road 8 7' C2 connected or remaining disconnected (depending on where one lives), along the 88 southern edge of the development site. 89 6.2 At the duly-noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on March 2, 2011, 90 many people were present to speak about the proposal; draft minutes from the public 91 hearing are included with this staff report as Attachment F. In addition to many 92 comments in support of the proposed plat, the primary concerns that people expressed 9'3 were related to storm water and whether County Road C2 ought to be modified in 94 connection with the proposed development. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the 95 Planning Commission voted unanimously (i.e., 5-0), to recommend approval of the 96 proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT,, with several conditions addressing the comments of the 9 7' DRC. 98 6.3 The applicants held a neighborhood informational meeting on the evening of Wednesday, 99 March 16th. A report of that meeting was not available when this report was drafted, but 100 project representatives may be able to offer a verbal account during the City Council 101 meeting if a written report is not provided before then. 102 7.0 RECOMMENDATION 10'3 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of this report, the 1 G14 Planning Division staff concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to PF I I- —RCA-0321 I I.doc Page 3 of 4