CCP 08082022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

38 Setbacks and Impervious Coverage 39 Although building setbacks are not specifically reviewed and approved as part of a plat application, most 40 of the building footprints represented in the preliminary development plans do appear to conform to the 41 minimum property line setback requirements of the LDR district, and those that do not can be corrected 42 prior to applying for building permits. Likewise, the impervious coverage limits established in the 43 zoning code are not strictly regulated in the plat review process. The impervious surfaces represented in 44 plat application materials are intended to show a maximum development condition for the purpose of 45 being able to design a storm water management plan that meets the applicable requirements. In this 46 light, the proposal appears to conform to the impervious coverage provisions established in §1004.09.C. 47 Storm Water Management 48 The City Engineer’s memo indicates the plans meet pertinent requirements and the storm sewer should 49 be private. 50 Shared Driveway 51 The City Engineer has confirmed parking would be allowed on one side of the shared driveway where it 52 is at least 26 feet wide, and Roseville’s Fire Marshal has confirmed the shared driveway design is 53 acceptable as long as the twin homes are built with sprinkler systems. 54 Tree Preservation 55 The tree preservation and replacement requirements in §1011.04 of the City Code provide a way to 56 quantify the amount of tree material being removed for a given project and to calculate the resulting tree 57 replacement obligation. The tree inventory and preliminary removals plan are included in Attachment C. 58 Based on the proposed development the replacement calculation will likely result in a replacement 59 obligation that will be satisfied with a combination of new trees and cash payment, although Planning 60 Division staff continues to work with Roseville’s consulting forester to validate the data. 61 Park Dedication 62 City staff has determined that the proposed seven-lot plat represents a net increase of five developable 63 lots. As such, the City could accept a dedication of up to approximately 0.13 acres of park land (based 64 on the requirement to dedicate up to 10% of the 1.27-acre development site) or a dedication of cash in 65 lieu of land, or an equivalent combination of land and cash. The Parks and Recreation Commission 66 (PRC) reviewed the proposal at its meeting of June 7, 2022, and recommended a dedication of cash in 67 lieu of land. Based on the 2022 park dedication fee of $4,250 per net residential unit, the applicant 68 would be required to pay $21,250 to satisfy the park dedication requirement. An excerpt of the draft 69 June 7 PRC minutes is included with this RPCA as part of Attachment E. 70 Public Comment 71 As required for plats creating more than three lots, the applicant conducted the required pre-application 72 community engagement and held a virtual open house in April 2022. The applicant has submitted a 73 detailed summary of the discussion that occurred during the virtual open house meeting, which is 74 included with this RCA as part of Attachment D. A public hearing for the preliminary plat proposal was 75 held by the Planning Commission on July 6, 2022. Members of the public who participated in the public 76 hearing generally spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing similar concerns to those raised during and 77 after the pre-application open house. Draft minutes of the public hearing are included as part of 78 Attachment D. 79 City staff has also received emails and a few phone calls from neighboring homeowners expressing 80 opposition to the proposed development; the emails are included in Attachment D. Before responding to 81 the pertinent reasons for the objections, staff feels compelled to note that aspersions and insults directed 82 at the applicant are irrelevant to whether or not one has a right to develop private property in accordance 83 with established zoning standards. 7b RCA.docx Page 3 of 6