Laserfiche WebLink
Roseville’s Public Works Department staff have been working with the applicant to address the <br />49 <br />requirementsrelated to grading, drainage, easements, and dedication of additional right-of-way <br />50 <br />along both County Road B and Farrington Street.While these details are essential parts of a <br />51 <br />preliminary platapplication, the Planning Commission is not asked to review and digest such <br />52 <br />engineering-related plans; instead, actions by the Planning Commission and the City Council <br />53 <br />typically include conditions that such plans must ultimately meet the approval of Public Works <br />54 <br />staff. <br />55 <br />City Code §1011.04 (Tree Preservation) specifies that anapproved tree preservation plan is a <br />56 <br />necessary prerequisite for approval of a preliminary plat.A tree survey has been provided which <br />57 <br />identifies the trees on the property as well as the trees which are likely to be removedas a result <br />58 <br />ofthe current grading and utility plans and anticipated locations of houses and driveways. The <br />59 <br />site contains 347 trees with trunks at least 6 inches in diameter; based on the present proposal, <br />60 <br />160 trees would be removed and a total of 39 replacement trees would berequired.The <br />61 <br />replacementtrees may be any combination of coniferous trees that are at least 6 feet tall and <br />62 <br />deciduous trees with trunks at least 3 inches in diameter. While the replacement formula can be <br />63 <br />calculated even at this time, the final tree preservation plan depends upon the final grading plan, <br />64 <br />whichmay not be finalized until after the preliminary plat is approved; for this reason, it is <br />65 <br />prudent to proceed with review and possible approval of the preliminary platwith the condition <br />66 <br />that site grading and building permits should not be issued without an approval of the final tree <br />67 <br />preservation plan. <br />68 <br />At its meeting of February 6, 2014,Roseville’s Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the <br />69 <br />then-proposed preliminary platagainst the park dedication requirements of §1103.07 of the City <br />70 <br />Code and recommended a dedication of cash in lieu of land; the Parks and RecreationDirector <br />71 <br />has confirmed that thisrecommendation still stands. The existing land area is composed of one <br />72 <br />buildable parcel subdivided from Lot 7 of the 1881 Michel's Rearrangement of Lots 9 to 16 <br />73 <br />Inclusive of Mackubin and Iglehart’s Addition of Out Lotsplat. Since the existing land comprises <br />74 <br />one residential unit, the proposed six-unit plat would create five new building sites. The2015 <br />75 <br />Fee Schedule establishes a park dedication amount of $3,500 per residential unit; for the five, <br />76 <br />newly-created residential lots the total park dedication would be $17,500, to be collected prior to <br />77 <br />recording an approved plat at Ramsey County. <br />78 <br />The Public Works Department staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and development <br />79 <br />plansas illustrated in Attachment C and has the following comments. <br />80 <br />The existing 20 foot wide storm water utility easement will need to be vacated prior to the <br />81 <br />filing of the final plat. Close coordination with the applicant on timing for the easement <br />82 <br />vacation is requested. <br />83 <br />Staff has forwarded the applicant detailed comments related to the proposed storm water <br />84 <br />management for this development. Staff will continue to work with the developer on a <br />85 <br />design that can be approved by the City and the Capital Region Watershed District. The <br />86 <br />final design of said stormwater management system may require alterations to the <br />87 <br />proposed drainage and utility easement as currently shown on the plat. <br />88 <br />Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) met on April 16 and 23, 2015to discuss <br />89 <br />this application. Beyond the above comments pertaining to the zoning codeand storm water, the <br />90 <br />DRC only raised the issue of the large drainage and utility easement in the rear of proposed Lot <br />91 <br />6.The concern is that the owner of the lot could be overly burdened with the maintenance of the <br />92 <br />storm water facilities, or that the facilities could be neglected and become a site of dumping, and <br />93 <br />PF15-004_RPCA_050615 <br />Page 3of 5 <br /> <br />