Laserfiche WebLink
City Code §1103.04 (Easements): <br />Drainage and utility easements 12 feet in width, centered on <br />54 <br />side and rear property lines,are requiredwhere necessary. The proposed plat meets and exceeds <br />55 <br />this requirement. <br />56 <br />City Code §1103.06 (Lot Standards): <br />All lotsfor single-family detached dwellingsmust be at <br />57 <br />least 85 feet wide, 110 feet deep,and comprise at least 11,000 square feet in area, except that <br />58 <br />corner lots must be a minimum of 100 feet in width and depth and have at least 12,500 square <br />59 <br />feet in area.All of the proposed lots exceed these requirements even if the easement surrounding <br />60 <br />the proposed street is excluded from the parcels as though the easement area was equivalent to <br />61 <br />dedicating right-of-way. <br />62 <br />Roseville’s Public Works Department staff have been working with the applicant to address the <br />63 <br />requirementsrelated to grading and drainage, street design, and the private utilities that will be <br />64 <br />necessary to serve the new lots.Even if these plans are not discussed in detail at the public <br />65 <br />hearing, actions by the Planning Commission and the City Council typically include conditions <br />66 <br />that such plans must ultimately meet the approval of Public Works staff. <br />67 <br />City Code specifies that anapproved tree preservation plan is a necessary prerequisite for <br />68 <br />approval of a preliminary plat.The plan indicates the expected removal of 44 of 91 deciduous <br />69 <br />trees and removal of 7 of 34 conifers; theplanhas been provided to S&S Tree Service, which is <br />70 <br />under contract with Roseville to review tree preservation plans and monitor the implementation <br />71 <br />of those plans in the field during construction.This contracted arrangementwith S&S Tree <br />72 <br />Servicehas only recently been formalized so, while the review of the tree preservation plan has <br />73 <br />not yet been completedin advance of the preparation of this RPCA, Planning Division staff <br />74 <br />anticipates being able to report on the review during the public hearing. <br />75 <br />At its meeting of June 4, 2013 Roseville’s Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the <br />76 <br />proposed preliminary platagainst the park dedication requirements of §1103.07 of the City Code <br />77 <br />and recommended a dedication ofcash in lieu of land. Since the existing, undeveloped parcel <br />78 <br />comprises one residential unit, the proposed four-lot plat would create three new building sites. <br />79 <br />The 2015Fee Schedule establishes a park dedication amount of $3,500 per residential unit; for <br />80 <br />the three, newly-created residential lots the total park dedication would be $10,500, to be <br />81 <br />collected prior to recording an approved plat at Ramsey County. <br />82 <br />Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) met on June 11 and 18, 2015to discuss this <br />83 <br />application.Beyond the above comments pertaining to the zoningand subdivisioncodes <br />84 <br />representatives of the Public Works Department had the following comments. <br />85 <br />a.There are several small basins shown to address the required storm water treatment and <br />86 <br />retention requirements. The overflow of these devices for the most part appears to flow to the <br />87 <br />rear of the development and ultimately drain to the existing catch basin located between this <br />88 <br />parcel and Marion Street to the west. While overland flow is an acceptable method of <br />89 <br />conveyance for storm water, the existing undulating ground in this area currently slows water <br />90 <br />conveyance and causes some pooling of water during heavy events. This will continue to be <br />91 <br />the case after development, although the proposed basins should provide some rate control <br />92 <br />for most rain events. <br />93 <br />b.The proposed basins and private road will require a Homeowners Association to be <br />94 <br />established for the purposes of funding the maintenance of these assets. It should be noted <br />95 <br />that while the proposed basins and site grading meet the requirements of the City and should <br />96 <br />meet the requirements of the watershed (watershed review and approval are pending), this is <br />97 <br />PF15-010_RPCA_070115 <br />Page 3of 5 <br /> <br />