2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

7b RCA UPDATED Page 6 of 13 Utilities 180 The City Engineer’s memo indicates the following: 181 • Easement vacations are required, and staff supports the vacations provided necessary new 182 easements will be dedicated in the plat. 183 • The water and sewer utilities should be public, and current plans meet City standards. 184 Pathways and Proposed Private Street 185 • The City Engineer supports the private street design, and specifies that based on the width, on-186 street parking would be permitted on one side. Based on its radius, the cul-de-sac must be signed 187 for no parking. The roadway meets City design standards, except for the length. Final 188 construction plans will be approved by the City prior to issuing permits. 189 • Roseville’s Fire Chief supports the length and design of the proposed cul-de-sac street provided 190 that a fire hydrant is installed near the end of the street. 191 • The current site plan’s proposed pathway meets the requirement of connecting Marion Street to 192 Lake McCarrons County Park as detailed in the comprehensive plan. Some minor detail changes 193 have been conveyed to the developer. 194 Storm Water Management 195 The City Engineer’s memo indicates the following: 196 • The site meets Roseville’s stormwater standards and the development won’t negatively impact 197 local drainage and water quality. 198 • The storm sewer improvements within the site would be private. 199 Tree Preservation 200 The tree preservation and replacement requirements in §1011.04 of the City Code provide a way to 201 quantify the amount of tree material being removed for a given project and to calculate the resulting tree 202 replacement obligation. The applicant has provided these calculations, and they are included in 203 Attachment C. At the time this RPCA was prepared, Roseville’s consulting forester has not yet 204 completed an initial review of the tree preservation plan. The applicant’s preliminary calculation, based 205 on the proposed development, would elicit the obligation to plant about 300 replacement trees across the 206 development site, although Planning Division staff and the consulting forester are continuing to validate 207 the data. Should the applicant be unable, or elect not to plant all required replacement trees, the 208 ordinance offers one alternative, which is to make a cash-in-lieu payment of $500 per unplanted tree or 209 an amount not to exceed 10% of the assessed value of the land (i.e., $583,500 x 10% = $58,350), 210 whichever is less. 211 Park Dedication 212 This subdivision proposal actuates the park dedication requirement because the subject property is 213 greater than one acre in size and the proposal results in a net increase of development lots. Since the 214 subject property includes three existing residential parcels, City staff has determined that the proposed 215 20-lot plat represents a net increase of 17 developable lots. As such, the City could accept a dedication 216 of up to approximately half an acre of park land (based on the requirement to dedicate up to 10% of the 217 land of the 5.1-acre development site) or a dedication of cash in lieu of land, or an equivalent 218 combination of land and cash. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed the proposal at its 219 meeting of January 5, 2021, and recommended a dedication of $72,250 in lieu of land, based on the 220 2021 park dedication fee of $4,250 per net residential unit, to satisfy the park dedication requirement. 221