2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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