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
Attachment E <br />PLANNWG FILE 14-002 <br />2 Request by J. W. Moore, Inc., holder of a purchase agreement for the residential property at 297- <br />3 311 County Road B, for approval of a REZONING from LDR-1 to LDR-2 and a PRELIMINARY PLAT <br />� creating seven (7) residential lots <br />v� Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 14-002 at 6:38 p.m. <br />6 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request of J. W. Moore to rezone the residential parcels at 297- <br />7 311 County Road B to facilitate a seven-lot single-family residential plat. Mr. Lloyd advised that the <br />� proposal also included the VACATION of an existing drainage and utility easement with the intent to <br />e- relocate that easement and install storm water infrastructure to improve area drainage as well as meeting <br />1C, requirements of the proposed development. Further details and staff's analysis were provided in the staff <br />1� report dated April 10, 2014. <br />1 r� As detailed in Rezoning Analysis Section 5.2 of the staff report, the narrowest of the proposed lots and <br />13 the smallest area exceed minimum requirements for width and square feet of the area in the LDR-2 <br />14 District. <br />14 Under Section 6.0 of the staff report, Mr. Lloyd noted that the Public Works Department had reviewed the <br />1�: proposed vacation/relocation of the storm drainage and utility easement and is supportive of it provided <br />1 i the replacement easement meets pertinent requirements; with the applicant continuing to work with staff <br />1� on those details if and when the application process proceeds. <br />19 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was supportive of the request as conditioned. <br />2C� Member Daire questioned if runoff onto Sandhurst Drive and Farrington Street would be directed to the <br />2 � proposed filtration pond. <br />22 Mr. Lloyd responded that it was his understanding that the rain water currently ran off those streets, <br />2� ending up on the subject property; but that the proposal would focus that runoff more to a destination <br />24 allowing for infiltration to control the rate and flow before leaving the subject property site. <br />2�. Member Boguszewski sought clarification that four parcels would be addressed on Farrington Street and <br />2E the remaining three would have a County Road B address. <br />27 Mr. Lloyd confirmed that, noting that Lot 4 could be addressed to either street. <br />28 Member Boguszewski note that, with the narrower lot width allowed under an LDR-2 zoning at 70', the <br />2� proposed lots looked similar to the width of existing properties at 283, 285 and 293 County Road B, <br />30 maintaining the character of the neighborhood and those existing lots. <br />31 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the proposed lots may be wider than existing lots to the east, but would still remain <br />32 similar in size. <br />33 Within the body of the report, specifically Section 7.4, Member Boguszewski noted that a condition of the <br />34 grading permit was that it be subject to a final tree preservation plan. However, Member Boguszewski <br />3�� noted that it was not specified in the suggested action of the Planning Commission; and questioned if it <br />36 would include that condition by reference. <br />37 Mr. Lloyd clarified that it was inherent that the suggested motion would include those items as detailed in <br />38 the staff report dated April 10, 2014 as presented, along with the recommendations in Section 9 <br />3� specifying those conditions. <br />4Cr At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the preliminary tree preservation plan and <br />4� percentage of trees and buffer zones; noting that the trees were identified per caliper size based on those <br />42 scheduled for removal. In current calculations, still in a preliminary stage, Mr. Lloyd noted that it appeared <br />4v that approximately one quarter of the trees would be removed, with many focused in front and in the <br />44 immediate vicinity of the infiltration pond, as provided on the displayed map. <br />45 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the majority of the trees were proposed for <br />4E removal within the easement areas and dedicated rights-of-way, in an effort to realign the storm water <br /><�? drainage infrastructure improvements (e.g. infiltration pipes and basin). <br />Page 1 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.