Laserfiche WebLink
Shoveland Ordinar�tce/B-6 Zoning Ordinance Summary Twin Lake.s Mixed 1lse Redevelopment - Roseville, Minne�sota <br />SanitarySewer�c�.z��!.:•rF�ccrAclequQCy/Stormwater'Sysdem/RaadwayCapacity �"ehr�ary {Q 20(1S <br />Gavernneent Approvals 5'��b�ak� idr Plan Modificatians �'��M�• 2 aF 7 <br />Langton Lake andlor the existing City parkland and City stormwater pond are within the 300 foot <br />Shoreland .i�irESdictional- Zoi�e. City property, according to staff and consultants, may not be used to meet <br />the design criteria described in Chapter 1016. This conclusion, however, appears to be in direct <br />contradiction to previous City staff and consultant comments. As part of tl►e May 2001 Alternative Urban <br />Areawide Review (AUAR) process, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) made <br />comments regarding utilization of undeveloped City property �vothiy� the Shoreland district to transfer <br />densities to the said study area in order to meet the requirements of the Code. City consultants and staff <br />stated that the City would require any residential project within 300 feet of w water body to meet the <br />District requirements or to transfer any additional density to remaining block. <br />The following are the pertinent zoning-and site design criteria associated witl� the Shoreland Jurisdictional <br />Zone (300 feet from the ordinary high water level of Langton Lake) as articulated in Chapter 1016 and <br />interpreted by City Staff ai�� Consultants: <br />■ The property �nust be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) because the underlying zoning <br />is not 'R-1 a��dlor R-2; <br />Commercial and industrial laud uses witl�o�t water-oriented uses are not to have public water <br />frontage. If a commercial as►tllor industrial land use has public water frontage, said use must be set <br />back 150 feet from the ordinary high water level or be set back � 00 feet and be 50% screened by <br />opaque vegetation from view from the water; <br />■ The maximum floor area coverage of the site m�ti' be 30% for any residential and commercial PUD <br />within the District. At least 50% of the total project area must be preserved as open space for PUD's <br />in the Shoreland Jurisdictional Zone; <br />For shore impact zones at least 70% for new residential PUD's and 50% for new commercial PUD's <br />must be preserved in a natural or existing vegetative state; <br />■ Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 25% for residential PUD's, and may not exceed 35% <br />for Commercial PUD's. <br />The following is a comparison between the Twin Lakes Concept Master Plan and design criteria found in <br />Chapter 1016: <br />� Review of criteria advises rezoning to a coratnercial PUD; <br />• Commercial and industrial land uses do not l�ave public water frontage adjacent to Langton Lake; <br />� The floor area coverage of the Master Plan for that area in the Shoreland Jurisdictional Zone is 16% <br />when incorporating the existing City of Rose�ill�'s stormwater management pond, and 20% when <br />this pond is not included in the calculation; <br />� The area preserved as open space within the Shoreland Jurisdictional Zone is 69% when including the <br />City's stormwater management pond and 61% when this pond is nof included in the calculation; <br />■ In the shore impact zone 100% of the impact zone will be preserved in a natural andlor existing <br />vegetative state; <br />+ The impervious area for the proposed development is 38% when the City's sto��mwater management <br />pond is included, and increases to 46% when the pond is removed from the calculation; <br />• The proposed structure setback is approximately 170 feet compared to the Code requirement of 75 <br />feet. The roadway setback is approximately 95 feet compared to the Code requirement of 30 feet. <br />In conclusion, it appears that the Twin Lakes Master Plan is consistent with Chapter 1016 of the City' s <br />Code as interpreted by City staff and consultants, with the exception of impervious coverage. Options for <br />addressing this inconsistency may include special stormwater design criteria, the inclusion of the existing <br />City park and pond areas in the impervious calculation, andlar amending the City's Shoreland <br />Management Ordinance. Alternatively, Chapter 10 � 6 makes provision for a variance from Code <br />requirements. However, a PUD is required already and the impervious calculation may simply be <br />included as part of the PUD language. <br />