2016_0104_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A E� 11,000 square feet in area; Subd. B further requires that corner lots must be a minimum of 100 6� feet in width and depth and have at least 12,500 square feet in area. All of the proposed lots 6� exceed these requirements even if the easement surrounding the proposed street is eXcluded from 6�� the parcels as though the easement area was equivalent to dedicating right-of-way. s� Subd. F of this section specifies that "side lines of lots shall be at right angles or radial to the Ea street line." Although the western end of the proposed private street is square, Planning Division �c� staff believes that the proposed side boundary common to Lots 1 and 2, extending into the 7� southwestern corner of the eXisting parcel, meets this requirement because it intersects with the 72 middle of the western end of the proposed street in a radial fashion. If need be, the project 73 engineers have indicated that a semicircle of asphalt can be appended to the western end of the �� private street so that this side lot line is mare obviously radial to the street; it is the opinion of �� Planning Division staff, however, that adding pavement is unnecessary and would only serve to 7� increase the impervious surface across the development. 7� Roseville's Public Works Department staff has been working with the applicant to address the �B requirements related to grading and drainage, street design, and the private utilities that will be �� necessary to serve the new lots. Even if these plans are not discussed in detail at the public 8o hearing, actions by the Planning Commission and the City Council typically include conditions 8�i that such plans must ultimately meet the approval of Public Works staff. 82 City Code specifies that an approved tree preservation plan is a necessary prerequisite for �s approval of a preliminary plat. Mark Rehder, the certified arborist consulting with the 8� Community Development Department, has reviewed the submitted tree preservation plan and 8�; determined it to be an accurate inventory of existing trees as well as a reasonable assessment of 8�; the trees likely to be lost as a result of the proposed development. The plan indicates the eXpected 8�� removal of 23 significant- and heritage-size deciduous trees and eight significant coniferous 8� trees; based on the tree replacement calculations in the City Code, this would not require planting 89 replacement trees beyond what is called for in the landscaping of new one-family, detached 9c� residences. Mr. Rehder will continue to review the plan for on-going accuracy as development 9 � plans are finalized and will monitor tree removal and protection efforts during construction. 9% At its meeting of June 4, 2013 Roseville's Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the 93 proposed preliminary plat against the park dedication requirements of § 1103.07 of the City Code 9<: and recommended a dedication of cash in lieu of land. Since the existing, undeveloped parcel 95 comprises one residential unit, the proposed three-lot plat would create two new building sites. 9� The 2015 Fee Schedule establishes a park dedication amount of $3,500 per residential unit; for 9� the three, newly-created residential lots the total park dedication would be $7,000, to be collected 9� prior to recording an approved plat at Ramsey County. 99 Roseville's Development Review Committee (DRC) met on November 12 and 19, 2015 to � o� discuss this application. Beyond the above comments pertaining to the zoning and subdivision � o� codes representatives of the Public Works Department had the following comments. � 02 a. There are several basins shown to address the required storm water treatment and retention � o: requirements. The proposed drainage improvements meet or exceed City requirements. � o�� Existing flow off site is reduced to both the north and southwest. The outlet for the water to � o'.� the southwest of the development is onto private property. This is similar to existing � o�� conditions, but the flow will be reduced. Additional flow is directed to Acorn Road, which is � o� permissible because the additional runoff is minimal and the Acorn Road storm sewer system � o� can handle the additional flow. PF 15-023 RPCA 120215 Page 3 of 15 Page 3 of 4