2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

45 Right-of-Way and Easements 46 Roseville’s City Engineer has indicated the following: 47 The right-of-way dedication and the location of the proposed driveway meet Ramsey County’s 48 requirements. 49 The proposed drainage and utility easements as shown on the proposed plat meet the 50 requirements of the City. 51 Proposed Shared Driveway 52 While the specific details of the shared driveway are not the subject of the review and approval of the 53 proposed plat, the DRC has the following feedback on the details presented in the preliminary plans. 54 The City Engineer has indicated that the shared driveway must be at least five feet from the 55 western boundary of the subject property. 56 Roseville’s Fire Chief has offered the following comments regarding adequate access for fire 57 apparatus: 58 o The shared driveway must be at least 20 feet in width. 59 o The shared driveway must have a turn-around with a radius of at least 34 feet or the 60 proposed dwellings must be sprinkled. 61 Because the preliminary plat does not include a suitable turn-around, the dwellings will need to 62 meet the pertinent sprinkling requirements in the building and fire codes. 63 Beyond the specific details of the shared driveway, Planning Division staff wishes to provide additional 64 context about why the proposal is not subject to the recently adopted ordinance regulating the location of 65 a new street within a plat. At its most fundamental level, this location does not abut any residential 66 properties in the LDR-1 zoning district so the new ordinancecannot be reasonably applied to the 67 proposal. The new ordinance requires new streets in a proposed plat to be located at least 110 feet (i.e., 68 the minimum depth of single-family lots in the LDR-1 district) from neighboring single-family 69 properties; since there are no single-family lots in the LDR-1 zoning district adjacent to the proposed 70 development site, it is not reasonable to apply and enforce this spacing standard to the proposed 71 development. In recognition of needed clarity surrounding when/if a driveway becomes a road, the City 72 Engineer was consulted,who indicated the proposed driveway is acceptable in this location because it is 73 not longer than 230 feet in length and does not serve enough units to generate a traffic demand or 74 parking need to justify a road. 75 Park Dedication 76 This subdivision proposal does not actuate the park dedication requirement because the subject property 77 is less than one acre in size. 78 Tree Preservation 79 The tree preservation and replacement plan requirements in City Code §1011.04 provide a way to 80 quantify the amount of tree material being removed for a given project and to calculate the potential tree 81 replacement obligation. The applicant’s preliminary calculation, included in Attachment C, erroneously 82 used numbers of trees (rather than diameter inches). Although Roseville’s consulting forester is still 83 working to complete his review of the tree preservation plan, the correct tree replacement obligation 84 looks to be closer to about 50 trees. Should the applicant be unable, or elect not to plant all required 85 replacement trees, the ordinance offers one alternative, which is to make a cash-in-lieu payment of $500 86 per unplanted tree or an amount not to exceed 10% of the assessed value of the land (i.e., $72,600 x 10% 87 = $7,260), whichever is less. 7c RCA USE THIS ONE PF20-026_RCA_20210222 Page 3 of 5