My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01908
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1900-1999
>
pf_01908
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2024 4:18:18 PM
Creation date
2/15/2024 4:16:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1908
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Our goal is to redesign buildings to appeal to the "graying" pop- <br />ulation of Roseville, and simultaneously to correct the problems <br />that have occurred on this troubled site. <br />In discussions with adjacent neighbors, and as a result of marketing <br />research through ads in the paper, we have determined that the most <br />desirable units would be single level living with the option to have <br />additional bedrooms on the second story. <br />Working with the city planner and staff, we have arrived at a decision <br />that the best long term development of this general area should include <br />completion of a public road, Rose Place. This would better facilitate <br />the future development of the land to the north and south of the <br />property. While it is possible to develop both of these projects <br />with private roads, in the interest of fire protection,.city control, <br />aesthetics and conformity, logic dictates that a public road would <br />be a better choice. Sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer are al- <br />ready installed in Rose Place. <br />Union Bank, the owner of the property, has <br />the proposal of a public roads, only if it <br />property owners. Their thinking is that z <br />road would be roughly the same as the cost <br />road that was approved several years ago. <br />go with a private road if we cannot assess <br />equally. <br />agreed to go along with <br />is assessed 50/50 to both <br />of the cost of a public <br />of the original private <br />Union Bank would elect to <br />both property owners <br />Tax Increment financing was considered for the public road in hopes <br />of keeping the cost to a minimum, and to insure support from both <br />Union Bank, and the owners of the trailer park on the north. There <br />seemed to be a lack of the needed support to accomplish this, and <br />therefore that idea was dropped. <br />The plan as submitted shows private parking and driveway without the <br />use of curbing. The feeling is that we would like to maintain the <br />small residential appearance associated with single family, or duplex's <br />where curbing would not be used. I recognize there are some advantages <br />to using curbing, but I would like to make that decision at a later <br />time. Part of my decision would be based on the advice of town house <br />maintenance companies, and also on what the competition does. <br />As soon as we get council approval on the P.U.D., we will complete <br />construction on the existing condo, and begin our efforts to sell the <br />units. Construction on the 12 townhouse units will not start until <br />after the condo units are essentially sold out. Our plan at this time <br />is to finish the exterior of the existing condo with aluminum siding, <br />similar to the siding to be used on the 12 new townhouse units. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.