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
9g 1881 Michel's Rearrangement of Lots 9 to 16 Inclusive of Mackubin and Iglehart's <br />� oo Addition of Out Lots plat. Since the existing land comprises two residential units, the <br />�o� proposed 7-unit plat would create five new building sites. The 2014 Fee Schedule <br />� 02 establishes a park dedication amount of $3,500 per residential unit; for the five, newly- <br />�os created residential lots the total park dedication would be $17,500, to be collected prior <br />� 04 to recording an approved plat at Ramsey County. <br />105 7.0 PUBLIC COMMENT <br />� 06 7.1 The duly-noticed public hearing for this application was held by the Planning <br />� 07 Commission at its meeting of April 10, 2014; draft minutes of the meeting are included <br />� og with this RCA as Attachment E. No concerns were expressed about the number or size of <br />�os the proposed lots, but some people were nervous about the fact that duplexes and other <br />� � o two-family structures are permitted in the LDR-2 district. In the end, the maj ority of <br />� � � Planning Commissioners were comfortable that one-family detached homes will be <br />� � 2 developed as proposed and voted, 6— l, to recommend approval of the application. <br />� � 3 72 In addition to the comments offered at the public hearing, Planning Division staff has <br />� � 4 received one email from a neighboring property owner about the proposal. This <br />� � 5 homeowner has no particular problem with the proposed one-family development, but is <br />� � 6 concerned about ensuring that the storm water issues on his property are not exacerbated <br />� � 7 by the development. The email is included with this RCA as Attachment F. <br />118 8.0 RECOMMENDATION <br />� � 9 8.1 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 3— 4 and 7 of this report, the <br />� 2o Planning Division concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to <br />�2� approve the proposed REZONnvG of the property at 297-311 County Road B from LDR-1 <br />�22 to LDR-2, pursuant to Title 10 of the Roseville Ciry Code, with the condition that the <br />�23 rezoning shall be contingent upon approval and recording of the final plat. <br />�24 82 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 3, 5, and 7 of this report, the <br />�25 Planning Division and Public Warks Department concur with the recommendation of the <br />�26 Planning Commission to approve the proposed EASEMENT vACAT1oN at 311 County Road <br />� 27 B, with the condition that the final approval of the easement vacation shall be contingent <br />�28 upon approval and recording of the final plat. <br />�2g 83 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 3, 5, and 7 of this report, the <br />� 3o Planning Division concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to <br />� 3 � approve the proposed P�LIMnv�Y PLAT pursuant to Title 11 of the Roseville City Code <br />� 32 with the condition that permits for site improvements shall not be issued without iterative <br />��3 review of the tree preservation plan to account for any impacts not previously anticipated. <br />PF14-002 Prelim RCA_042ll4 (2).doc <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.