2014_0421_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5 n pertinent requirements. The applicant is continuing to wark with Public Works staff on 5� these details. 5� 52 Since the Planning Commission is responsible for holding the public hearings for 5��' applications like the proposed vacation, Planning Division staff is preparing the report 5u� and supporting materials for review. But the Planning staff doesn't have an interest, per 5�; se, in such proposals and merely conveys the comments and recommendation of the 6�.� Public Warks Department in addition to coordinating the review of the proposal by the s^ Planning Commission and City Council. 6� 6.0 PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS �a 6.1 Plat proposals are reviewed primarily for the purpose of ensuring that all proposed lots 6« meet the minimum size requirements of the zoning code, that adequate streets and other 6� public infrastructure are in place or identified and constructed, and that storm water is 6n addressed to prevent problems either on nearby property or within the storm water 6' 6� 62 69 7:� 7" 63 7r 73 74 �5 �� �� 7 �� �v; 8a � 8� system. As noted above, the proposed p�LlMnvaRY pLaT meets the requirements for drainage and utility easements and exceeds the minimum lot size requirements. The proposed p�LlMnv�Y pLAT is included with this report as Attachment D. Roseville's Public Warks Department staff has been warking with the applicant to address the requirements related to grading, drainage, easements, and dedication of additional right-of-way along both County Road B and Farrington Street. While these details are essential parts of a pxELlMrIV�Y pLAT application, the City Council is not asked to review and digest such engineering-related plans; instead, actions by the City Council typically include conditions that such plans must ultimately meet the approval of Public Warks staf£ To that end, Engineering staff has reviewed the subject plan and has returned some comments to the applicant related to general site grading as it relates to storm water as well as some general utility items; these items will be addressed to satisfy administrative requirements for issuance of any grading and/or building permits. Beyond these items, Engineering staff has no remaining comments on the preliminary plat 82 6.4 City Code § 1011.04 (Tree Preservation) specif'ies that an approved tree preservation plan 8.� is a necessary prerequisite for approval of a pxEL1�NAxY pLAT. A tree survey has been s� provided which identifies the trees on the property as well as the trees which are likely to a:,-�� be removed, based on the current grading and utility plans and anticipated locations a� houses and driveways. Largely because about 80% of trees to be removed are not s�� characterized as "significant" trees according to § 1011.04, the result of the tree 8r replacement calculation is that no replacement trees are required. While the essential 8� information has been provided, the final tree preservation plan depends upon the final gC; grading plan and plans for the individual homes, which may not be finalized until after g� the final plat; for this reason, it is prudent to proceed with review and possible approval g� of the p�LllvmvARY pLAT with the condition that site grading and building permits should 9'; 9` 9� 6.5 not be issued without iterative review of the tree preservation plan to account for any impacts not anticipated at this point in the planning process. At its meeting of February 6, 2014 Roseville's Parks and Recreation Commission g� reviewed the proposed p�LIMrIVAxY pLAT against the park dedication requirements of g�� § 1103.07 of the City Code and recommended a dedication of cash in lieu of land. The �� existing land area is composed of two buildable parcels subdivided from Lot 7 of the PF14-002 Prelim RCA_042ll4 (2).doc Page 3 of 5