CCP 02222021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

136 Based on its review of the preceding analysis Roseville’s Planning Commission unanimously 137 recommended approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Change, finding that the 138 change is not in conflict with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and that the proposed development would 139 substantially advance some of Roseville’s housing-and pedestrian-related goals. When making its 140 decision on the request the City Council should discuss the goals and strategies above to determine if the 141 merits of the proposed project justify approval of the requested land use map change. If the City Council 142 approves the requested change to comprehensive plan land use designation at 196 S McCarrons 143 Boulevard, the approval must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for its administrative review and 144 approval. 145 Zoning Map Change 146 The preceding discussion of the proposed comprehensive plan change identifies the possibility of 147 developing a similar (or greater) number of residential units than proposed on the 210 S McCarrons 148 Boulevard property alone, which would not require a change to the comprehensive plan. This is not to 149 suggest that the applicant is entitled to the requested comprehensive plan change for the 196 S 150 McCarrons Boulevard parcel, but if the City Council concurs with thePlanning Commission’s 151 determinationthat the comprehensive plan change should be approved, the requested rezoning to the 152 MDR district becomes a procedurally necessary step to ensure the zoning map continues to be 153 “consistent with the guidance and intent of the Comprehensive Plan” as required in City Code §1009.04 154 (Zoning Changes). If the City Council approves the requested zoning change, the relevant ordinance can 155 be passed at its February 22 meeting, but publication to effect the ordinance should only occur after the 156 Metropolitan Council’s approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. By contrast, if the City Council 157 denies the comprehensive plan map change, then it would be proper to deny the requested zoning map 158 change, as well. 159 Preliminary Plat 160 Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) met on several occasions in late 2020 and early 161 2021 to review the proposed subdivision plans. Some of the comments and feedback based on the 162 DRC’s review of the application are included in the analysis below, and the full comments offered in 163 memos prepared by DRC members are included with this RCA in Attachment E. The Planning 164 Commission’s unanimous recommendation to approve the preliminary plat was based in part on this 165 analysis of the proposal by staff. 166 Proposed Lots 167 The minimum width of lots for one-family, detached homes in the MDR zoning district is 40 feet, and 168 all of the proposed lots are at least 40 feet wide, meeting or exceeding the minimum width requirement 169 Each lot is also required to have a minimum of 4,800 square feet of area. While half of the lots are 170 smaller than this nominal minimum, the area of all the lots is well in excess of the minimum area 171 requirement per lot when averaged across the development site, as provided in City Code §1004.10.C.3. 172 Setbacks and Wetlands 173 Although building setbacks are not specifically reviewed and approved as part of a plat application, the 174 building pads represented in the preliminary development plans do appear to conform to all of the 175 minimum property line setbacks of the MDR district, except that most of them have a “zero setback” 176 from one of its lot’s side boundaries. This exception is the subject of the zoning variance request 177 addressed later in this RCA. The zoning code requires structures to be set back at least 50 feet from 178 wetland boundaries, and the preliminary plat illustrates that all of the structures would meet this 179 requirements, although signs marking the wetland buffer will be required. 7b RCA UPDATED Page 5 of 13