Laserfiche WebLink
7c RCA USE THIS ONE PF20-026_RCA_20210222 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />The applicant began this project by conducting the pre-application community engagement (i.e., “open 3 <br />house”) process in August 2020, proposing to plat the land into four lots for development of detached 4 <br />townhomes. Roseville’s Development Review Committee’s (DRC) feedback on the original plans 5 <br />submitted after the open house process alerted the applicant to a requirement that a development like this 6 <br />must either have sprinkled dwellings or a cul-de-sac (or other turnaround area) large enough for a fire 7 <br />truck to turn around in. The area of a suitable turnaround would consume a relatively large portion of a 8 <br />site this size, effectively eliminating at least one of the originally proposed units. Sharing the added costs 9 <br />of a suitably sized cul-de-sac across fewer homes likely made this option prohibitively expensive. This 10 <br />led the applicant to sprinkler the dwellings, instead. Because of the substantial cost of sprinkling the 11 <br />homes, however, the applicant felt it necessary to spread the added expense across more dwellings, so 12 <br />the original proposal has been revised to a six-unit twinhome development occupying about the same 13 <br />amount of the site. 14 <br />Although the current proposal is not identical to what was proposed and discussed during the open house 15 <br />process, it remains a development of single-family homes at a density in the low end of the range 16 <br />allowed by the MDR zoning on the property. This makes the revised proposal effectively the same as the 17 <br />original proposal for the purposes of reviewing an application for preliminary plat approval. However, 18 <br />because the revised proposal is somewhat different from what the open house participants understood it 19 <br />would be, the applicant emailed the participants in mid-January to briefly explain the change before City 20 <br />staff mailed the public hearing notices. Plans and other information detailing the proposed preliminary 21 <br />plat are included with this RCA as Attachment C. 22 <br />When exercising the “quasi-judicial” authority on subdivision requests, the role of the City is to 23 <br />determine the facts associated with a particular proposal and apply those facts to the legal standards 24 <br />contained in the ordinance and relevant state law. In general, if the facts indicate the application meets 25 <br />the relevant legal standards and will not harm the public health, safety, and general welfare, then the 26 <br />applicant is likely entitled to the approval. The City is, however, able to add conditions to all such 27 <br />approvals to ensure that potential impacts to parks, schools, roads, storm sewers, other public 28 <br />infrastructure, and the surrounding community are adequately addressed. Subdivisions may also be 29 <br />modified to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to provide for the orderly, 30 <br />economic, and safe development of land, and to promote housing affordability for all levels. 31 <br />Preliminary Plat 32 <br />Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) met on several occasions to review the proposed 33 <br />subdivision plans. Some of the comments and feedback based on the DRC’s review of the application 34 <br />are included in the analysis below, and the full comments offered by DRC members are included with 35 <br />this RCA as Attachment D. 36 <br />Proposed Lots 37 <br />The required minimum area for single-family attached lots such as those in The Woods of Roseville plat 38 <br />is 3,600 square feet. The individual areas of the proposed lots are less than this minimum, but when the 39 <br />area of the lots is calculated across the open area of the site, per City Code Section 1004.10.C, the 5,000 40 <br />square foot average exceeds the minimum required area. 41 <br />Although building setbacks are not specifically reviewed and approved as part of a plat application, the 42 <br />buildings represented in the development plans do appear to conform to the minimum setbacks of the 43 <br />MDR district. 44