CCP 02102025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

27 infrastructure on and around the subject property are adequately addressed. Subdivisions may also be 28 modified to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to provide for the orderly, 29 economic, and safe development of land, and to promote housing affordability for all levels. 30 31 Public Hearing 32 The purpose of the public hearing for such an application is to consult the public; it is an opportunity for 33 the public to learn the relevant facts about the proposal, ask clarifying questions, and provide input 34 pertaining to the relevant facts as well as the analysis of the facts presented by City staff. 35 36 Preliminary Plat Analysis 37 Detailed plans supporting the proposed plat are included with this RCA as Attachment 3. Roseville’s 38 Development Review Committee (DRC) met to review the proposed subdivision plans; some of the 39 comments and feedback based on the DRC’s review of the application are included in the analysis 40 below, and the full comments offered in memos prepared by DRC members are included with this RCA 41 in Attachment 4. 42 43 Proposed Lots 44 The minimum width of lots for one-family, detached homes in the LDR zoning district is 85 feet. The 45 proposed Lots 1 and 2 are both nearly 88 feet wide. A detached home is also required to have a 46 minimum lot area of 9,350 square feet of area; both of the proposed lots exceed 23,000 square feet. 47 48 Setbacks 49 Building setbacks are not specifically reviewed and approved as part of a plat application, but the 50 existing house and the new building footprint on proposed Lot 2 represented in the preliminary 51 development plans both appear to conform to all the minimum property line setbacks of the LDR district. 52 The two existing accessory structures near the front of Lot 2 and the proposed boundary between Lots 1 53 and 2 would encroach into the required minimum setbacks, but demolition permits have already been 54 issued to remove them and reclaim the lumber for other projects. Additionally, although the westernmost 55 of the two existing driveways into the property will no longer meet the minimum setback from the 56 proposed new lot boundary, Planning Division staff does not recommend making its removal a condition 57 of the plat approval. Instead, staff recommends eliminating the nonconforming driveway at such time as 58 there is a specific plan for improving the property, in conjunction with an application for a permit to build 59 a home on Lot 2. 60 61 Utilities and Storm Water 62 The attached memo from the City Engineer indicates: 63 Water and sanitary sewer service mains are available to the property. 64 The site can meet Roseville’s stormwater standards. 65 Because the storm sewer improvements within the site are being designed to treat storm water 66 from the adjacent portion of Roselawn Avenue, the City will accept and maintain the BMP as a 67 public basin. 68 69 Tree Preservation 70 The tree preservation and replacement requirements in §1011.04 of the City Code provide a way to 71 quantify the amount of tree material being removed for a given project and to calculate the resulting tree 72 replacement obligation. The applicant has provided a survey and inventory of some 50 trees, as shown 73 in Attachment 3, some of which have been identified by the forester as dead or in poor condition. 74 Several trees of poor and declining quality near the middle of the property were removed by the 75 applicant last spring but, because these trees were well outside of the area of the lot that would likely be 76 graded or excavated for future development, those trees are exempt from the replacement calculation. 77 Conservatively, the only trees that might be affected either by the demolition of the accessory structures 78 or by future development of a new home on Lot 2 are those with ID numbers 4-7. After excluding the 79 dead, dying, and removed trees from consideration, 30 trees remain in the tree preservation calculation 80 and the potential removal of four of those trees for new development would not elicit a requirement to Page 2 of 4 Qbhf!8!pg!264