2015-07-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

staff believesthat the intent of thissection is not to apply to the MDR district, thereby 50 eliminating a regulatory conflict between theSubdivision Code and the Zoning Code. 51 Furthermore, in the previous preliminary plat for this same siteapproved in 2014, a very similar 52 single family lot was created which also would not have met the lot sizestandardsand this 53 preliminary plat was fully approved through the process by the City Council. Based on the past 54 precedent on this site as well as the practical matter of not wanting to create regulatory conflict 55 between the City’s two primary land use ordinances, the Planning Division staff has determined 56 that the 85-foot minimum width standard in §1103.06 does not apply to this development 57 because of its MDR zoning. 58 City Code §1004.10 (MDR Lot Standards): Lots for one-family detached dwellings must be at 59 least 40 feet wide and comprise at least 4,800 square feet in area, and lots for attached units must 60 have at least 3,600 square feet of area; no minimum width is required for lots developed with 61 attached dwelling units. All proposed lots exceed the applicable size standards in the Zoning 62 Code. 63 Roseville’s Public Works Department staff have been working with the applicant to address the 64 requirementsrelated to grading, drainage, easements,the outlot,and dedication of additional 65 right-of-way along DaleStreet.Even if these plans are not discussed in detail at the public 66 hearing, actions by the Planning Commission and the City Council typically include conditions 67 that such plans must ultimately meet the approval of Public Works staff. 68 City Code specifies that anapproved tree preservation plan is a necessary prerequisite for 69 approval of a preliminary plat.A tree preservation plan has been submittedreview for the revised 70 proposalhas been provided to S&S Tree Service, which is under contract with Roseville to 71 review tree preservation plans and monitor the implementation of those plans in the field during 72 construction. This contracted arrangement with S&S Tree Service has only recently been 73 formalized so, while the review of the tree preservation plan has not yet been completed in 74 advance of the preparation of this RPCA, Planning Division staff anticipates being able to report 75 on the review during the public hearing. 76 At its meeting of April 1, 2014,Roseville’s Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the 77 then-proposed preliminary platagainst the park dedication requirements of §1103.07 of the City 78 Code and recommended a dedication of cash in lieu of land; the Parks and RecreationDirector 79 has confirmed that thisrecommendation still stands. The existing land area is composed of five 80 buildable lotsin the 1977O’Niell’s Additionplatand un-platted parcel where the former fire 81 station stands. Since the existing land comprises fiveresidential lots, the proposed 18-unit plat 82 would create 13new building sites. The2015 Fee Schedule establishes a park dedication amount 83 of $3,500 per residential unit; for the five, newly-created residential lots the total park dedication 84 would be $45,500, to be collected prior to recording an approved plat at Ramsey County. 85 Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) met on June 11 and 18, 2015to discuss this 86 application. Beyond the above comments pertaining to the zoning codeand storm water, the 87 DRC only really discussed how driveways could be arranged to maximize available on-street 88 parking; this is an issue that GMHC has been cognizant of as well, as is evident in the open 89 house meeting summary materials. 90 PC UBLIC OMMENT 91 At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff hasnot received any 92 communications from members of the public about the proposal. 93 PF15-011_RPCA_070115 Page 3of 4