Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8,1995 <br /> <br />site have 28 foot roads? What is the hardship? (There is no hardship but the <br />developer prefers smaller, more intimate neighborhood design. More street width <br />expands impervious surface, putting units closer to adjoining property.) A general <br />road rights-of-way policy discussion with Lon Aune ensued. Do parking areas <br />within townhouse design areas meet the city standards? (Yes, four spaces per <br />unit. ) <br /> <br />Member Wall asked the following: What would happen ifthe builders could not <br />finish the project because of changed economy? (John Shardlow explained <br />financing and phasing plans.) Is a three-year time frame feasible? (Yes.) Is the <br />park staff looking at the design and user needs for the neighborhood park? (Yes.) <br />What are the age demographics of this area? (The townhouses will have very few <br />children; the single-family units will have some children.) Are the cul-de-sac <br />landscaped islands practical? <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom explained that citizens have expressed concerns about <br />monuments. (The lots will be improved by the developers and school district. <br />The two entrance monuments' costs will be borne by the developer and the school <br />district.) The Home Owners' Association will maintain the entry monuments. <br /> <br />Member Harms asked if it is necessary to have such large identification <br />monuments? Roseville has no air of exclusivisity, and she would prefer <br />something smaller, but classy. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki asked John Shardlow if all landscaping and architecture will <br />be controlled by deed covenants? Why shouldn't this covenant be included in the <br />PUD requirements? (All covenants will be part ofPUD as design standards.) <br /> <br />There was a Planning Commission Recess at this point for 10 minutes <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki asked Mike Falk to summarize the project. He reviewed the <br />Comprehensive Plan consistency and the low density of the site (1.86 units/acre). <br />The remaining issues are technical and can be resolved by staff or consultants <br />within the next six weeks. Staff recommended approval with the following <br />conditions: <br /> <br />I) All wetlands to be platted as outlots and deeded to the City, and easements <br />shall be provided for the maintenance of all NURP basins and drainagesimprovements. <br /> <br />6 <br />