2015_0723_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A �c staff believes that the intent of this section is not to apply to the MDR district, thereby 5� eliminating a regulatory conflict between the Subdivision Code and the Zoning Code. 5� Furthermore, in the previous preliminary plat for this same site approved in 2014, a very similar 53 single family lot was created which also would not have met the lot size standards and this 5� preliminary plat was fully approved through the process by the City Council. Based on the past 55 precedent on this site as well as the practical matter of not wanting to create regulatory conflict 56 between the City's two primary land use ordinances, the Planning Division staff has determined 5 �' that the 85-foot minimum width standard in § 1103.06 does not apply to this development 5<; because of its MDR zoning. 5� City Code §1004.10 (MDR Lot Standards): Lots for one-family detached dwellings must be at 6�; least 40 feet wide and comprise at least 4,800 square feet in area, and lots for attached units must 6�� have at ]east 3,600 square feet of area; no minimum width is required for ]ots developed with 6% attached dwelling units. All proposed lots exceed the applicable size standards in the Zoning 6:. Code. �� Roseville's Public Works Department staff have been warlcing with the applicant to address the 6'� requirements related to grading, drainage, easements, the outlot, and dedication of additional 6� right-of-way along Dale Street. Even if these plans are not discussed in detail at the public 6� hearing, actions by the Planning Commission and the City Council typically include conditions 6<� that such plans must ultimately meet the approval of Public Works staff. 6:� City Code specifies that an approved tree preservation plan is a necessary prerequisite for �c approval of a preliminary plat. A tree preservation plan has been submitted review for the revised �� proposal has been provided to S&S Tree Service, which is under contract with Roseville to 72 review tree preservation plans and monitor the implementation of those plans in the field during 73 construction. This contracted arrangement with S&S Tree Service has only recently been 7� formalized so, while the review of the tree preservation plan has not yet been completed in �5 advance of the preparation of this RPCA, Planning Division staff anticipates being able to report �i, on the review during the public hearing. �7 At its meeting of April 1, 2014, Roseville's Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the �� then-proposed preliminary plat against the park dedication requirements of § 1103.07 of the City 7�a Code and recommended a dedication of cash in lieu of land; the Parks and Recreation Director �� has confirmed that this recommendation still stands. The eXisting land area is composed of five 8� buildable lots in the 1977 O'Niell's Addition plat and un-platted parcel where the former fire 8� station stands. Since the eXisting ]and comprises five residential lots, the proposed 18-unit plat s� would create 13 new building sites. The 2015 Fee Schedule establishes a park dedication amount s�� of $3,500 per residential unit; for the five, newly-created residential lots the total park dedication 8� would be $45,500, to be collected prior to recording an approved plat at Ramsey County. 8� Roseville's Development Review Committee (DRC) met on June 11 and 18, 2015 to discuss this 8� application. Beyond the above comments pertaining to the zoning code and storm water, the s8 DRC only really discussed how driveways could be arranged to maXimize available on-street �9 parking; this is an issue that GMHC has been cognizant of as well, as is evident in the open 90 house meeting summary materials. 9�1 PUBLIC COMMENT 9f At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has not received any Q`:; communications from members of the public about the proposal. PFlS-011 RPCA 070115 Page 3 of 18 Page 3 of 4