My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0421_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0421_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:43:38 PM
Creation date
4/17/2014 2:45:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
11 3.0 BACKGROUND <br />� 2 3.1 The subj ect property, located in Planning District 16, has a Comprehensive Plan Land <br />� 3 Use Designation of Low-Density Residential (LR) and a zoning classif'ication of Low- <br />�4� Density Residential-1 (LDR-1) District. <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />32 When exercising the City's legislative authority when acting on a�zoNrlvG request, the <br />role of the City is to review a proposal for its merits in addition to evaluating the <br />potential impacts to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. If a <br />rezoning request is found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is otherwise <br />a desirable proposal, the City may still deny the rezoning request if the proposal fails to <br />promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. <br />33 When exercising the so-called "quasi judicial" authority when acting on a pLAT request, <br />the role of the City is to determine the facts associated with a particular request and apply <br />those facts to the legal standards contained in the ordinance and relevant state law. In <br />general, if the facts indicate the applicant meets the relevant legal standard, then they are <br />likely entitled to the approval, although the City is able to add conditions to a plat <br />approval to ensure that the likely impacts to roads, storm sewers, and other public <br />infrastructure on and around the subject property are adequately addressed. <br />2s 3.4 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 4.0 <br />An applicant seeking approval of a plat of this size or a rezoning is required to hold an <br />open house meeting to inform the surrounding property owners and other interested <br />individuals of the proposal, to answer questions, and to solicit feedback The open house <br />for this application was held on January 6, 2014; the brief summary of the open house <br />meeting provided by the applicant is included with this staff report as Attachment C. <br />REZONING ANALYSIS <br />s4 4.1 The LR guidance of the property in the Comprehensive Plan allows for two possible low- <br />35 density zoning designations: the existing LDR-1 and the proposed LDR-2. Since the <br />36 subject property is about three-and-a-half acres in size, the proposed seven lots would <br />37 yield about two dwelling units per acre, which about half of the recommended maximum <br />3s density of single-family detached homes established in the Comprehensive Plan. <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />42 The proposal seeks to create seven single-family residential lots from the land area of the <br />two existing parcels. The land area and frontage length along County Road B and <br />Farrington Street is sufficient for seven lots, as proposed, that meet or exceed the <br />minimum width and area requirements for residential parcels in the existing LDR-1 <br />zoning district. While the rezoning to LDR-2 isn't essential to creating a 7-lot plat, the <br />smaller minimum width and area requirements of the LDR-2 district facilitates a better <br />arrangement of the proposed lots and keeps the width of the lots more consistent with the <br />adjacentproperties along County Road B and Farrington Street. <br />4� 4.3 <br />48 <br />49 <br />5G 5.0 <br />The narrowest of the proposed lots are 70 feet wide, and the smallest area is about 11,500 <br />square feet, which exceed the minimum requirements of 60 feet of width and 6,000 <br />square feet of area in the LDR-2 district. <br />EASEMENT VACATION ANALYSIS <br />5� 5.1 The Public Warks Department staff has reviewed the proposed vacation/relocation of the <br />52 drainage and utility easement as illustrated in Attachment C and is supportive of vacating <br />53 the existing easement provided that the proposed replacement easement meets the <br />PF14-002 Prelim RCA_042ll4 (2).doc <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.