2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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