2020_0518_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

41 The proposed drainage and utility easements as shown on the proposed plat meet the 42 requirements of the City. 43 Proposed Private Street and Pathway 44 The Subdivision Code limits the length of cul-de-sac streets to 500 feet, and the proposed cul-de-sac 45 street is approximately 550 feet long. The requested Subdivision Variance, analyzed below, is intended 46 to address this nonconformity. 47 The City Engineer supports the width and design of the street, and specifies that based on the 48 width, on-street parking will not be permitted. The roadway meets Citydesign standards, except 49 for the length. Final construction plans will be approved by the City prior to issuing permits. 50 On account of more urgent community-health related priorities, Roseville’s Fire Department 51 Chief has not had an opportunity in recent weeks to prepare a formal memo, but he has 52 confirmed his support for the longer-than-standard cul-de-sac street, with the condition that the 53 developer installs a fire hydrant at both ends of the proposed street. 54 The site plan included with this RCA as part of Attachment C shows a pathway along the east 55 side of Lexington, running the length of the development, which the applicants have been 56 designing to meet Roseville’s requirements. 57 Park Dedication 58 This subdivision proposal elicits the park dedication requirement because the subject property is greater 59 than one acre in size and the proposal results in a net increase of development lots. The Parks and 60 Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed the proposal on May 5, and recommended a dedication of land. 61 The City Attorney has subsequently advised that the acceptance of a land dedication be contingent on 62 receiving an appropriate statement of liability from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 63 and satisfactory due-diligence regarding the conditions of the soils in the dedicated land area. 64 The applicant’s soil borings, test pits, and Phase 1 & 2 reports reveal some petroleum impacts from 65 buried bituminous debrisin the north area of Outlot B and non-structural fill soils elsewherein the 66 southern part of the site. While the MPCA does not require any remediation prior to using the land, as it 67 is,for passive recreational purposes, full remediation would be required if any part of the of the 68 contaminated soils would be disturbed for development of homes, roads, utilities, etc. Therefore, since 69 the applicants do not intend to develop any of the land south of their proposal, they were amenable to 70 dedicating all of the land south of their proposal to the City for public park use. This dedication includes 71 1.61 acres between the Judith Avenue right-of-way and 0.67 acres south of the Judith Avenue right-of- 72 way, for a total of 2.28 acres, or about 40% of the land controlled by the developer. Such a dedication is 73 much larger than what can be required under City Code and State Statute, but it would not be improper 74 for the City to accept this dedication when it is volunteered by the applicant. 75 If the additional due diligence leads the City to concludethat the land is not suitable for park dedication, 76 then the City would require the applicant to pay a cash dedication in lieu of the land. Since the existing 77 property includes 12 existing, platted residential lots, City staff has determined that the proposed 32-lot 78 plat represents a net increase of 20 developable lots.Extending the $4,000 per unit fee established in the 79 City’s Fee Schedule across the net increase of 20 developable lots, the required park dedication fee 80 would be $80,000.The decision of land verses cash dedication does not impact the lot layout as depicted 81 on the Preliminary Plat. 82 Tree Preservation 83 The tree preservation and replacement plan requirements in City Code §1011.04 provide a way to 84 quantify the amount of tree material being removed for a given project and to calculate the potential tree 7d RCA Page 3 of 7