My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020_0518_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020
>
2020_0518_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2022 9:35:26 AM
Creation date
1/7/2022 9:34:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
5/18/2020
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
569
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
85 replacement obligation. The applicant has provided these calculations, and they are included in <br />86 Attachment C. This preliminary calculation is based on the proposed development (and does not include <br />87 the trees on the southernmost three lots), and it would elicit the replacement of 17 caliper-inches, or six <br />88 replacement trees (of 3-inch caliper) across the sitewhich is more than accounted for in the proposed <br />89 landscape plan. Roseville’s consulting forester has reviewed this preliminary tree preservation plan and <br />90 generally found it to be accurate.The details of the tree presentation plan may be revised as grading and <br />91 building plans are finalized for construction, and staff will continue to coordinate the review with the <br />92 consulting forester. <br />93 Storm Water Management <br />94 The grading and storm water management plan illustrated in Attachment C addresses the proposed <br />95 development on the lots as required. Like the tree preservation plan, the storm water management plan <br />96 reviewed with a plat proposal is not intended to be approved with the plat as the final storm water <br />97 management plan. Instead, the tree preservation and storm water management plans reviewed with a plat <br />98 proposal are intended to demonstrate that the standard City Code requirements can be met as the <br />99 proposed project is implemented. <br />100 Subdivision VarianceAnalysis <br />101 Section 1102.02.C of the City Code establishes a mandate that the City make four specific findings <br />102 about a subdivision variance request as a prerequisite for approving the variance pertaining to the <br />103 nonconforming length of the cul-de-sac street. The Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding <br />104 this applicationincludesthe following draft findings. <br />105 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is generally consistent with <br />106 the Comprehensive Plan because it represents the Comprehensive Plan’s goals of providing a variety <br />107 of housing types in the community. <br />108 2. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. <br />109 The purposes and intent of the subdivision ordinance as it applies to the length of a cul-de-sac street <br />110 is to ensure there are adequate ingress/egress provisions for emergency response vehicles and that <br />111 the new residents of the proposed development have a robust connection to the city’s transportation <br />112 network. The proposal is in harmony with these purposes of the subdivision ordinance because the <br />113 residential lots themselves are within 500 feet (i.e., the maximum length of a cul-de-sac street) of <br />114 County Road C2, and the proposed street will allow proper ingress and egress for emergency <br />115 vehicles as long as no on-street parking is allowed. Moreover, an alternative to a shorter cul-de-sac <br />116 street would likely result in another street connection, an alternative that may be less safe from a <br />117 traffic perspective and perhaps less appealing to the nearby residential neighborhoods. <br />118 3. An unusual hardship on the land exists. The soil in the southern portion of the subject property has <br />119 contamination such that the land may be suitable for recreation on the surface, but that requires <br />120 extensive remediation if it were to be disturbed for installation of a road or development of <br />121 additional residences. The prohibitive cost of this remediation to extend the proposed street further <br />122 south to intersect with Lexington Avenue (and thereby obviate the limit on cul-de-sac street length) <br />123 constitutes an unusual hardship, which the subdivision variance process is intended to relieve. <br />124 4. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the requested <br />125 subdivision variance is approved, the approval will not alter the essential character of the locality <br />126 because even the adjacent public street is more than three times as long, meaning that residents in the <br />127 middle of that block must travel about 900 feet to reach the nearest connection to the broader <br />128 transportation network. <br />7d RCA <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.