pm_020102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Brent Thompson, (Stoney River Development) requested consideration of the Preliminary Plat and a General Concept approval for a Planned Unit Development (Section 1008.1 OC) of the Roseville City Code. The proposal seeks approval to subdivide the 2.25-acre parcel at 495 lona Lane into an eight lot residential development with 8 single-family, owner occupied, detached structures. The proposal will slightly increase lot and house density on the 2.5 parcel from that which is allowed under Section 1 004.02D5 of the Roseville City Code. Community Development staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and concept plan for the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Tom Walsh, 454 lona Lane, stated that the eight-house plan was acceptable, and that it may be more acceptable as a seven-house development, allowing more setback between units. By reducing to seven the development would have fewer vehicles and traffic, and the units will be further apart, reducing fire hazards. Member Mulder asked for the scale of the units (ramblers with 1,500 - 1,800 s.f. per first finished floors per unit). How large will the building area be? (2,100 - 2,200 s.f.). How many will be walkout units (six units). Member Olson asked what the elevation notation on the plan represented (floor elevation at first floor and lower level floor). Member Mulder asked for total impervious surface (22-23%). Member Mulder asked for ponding details. Deb Bloom reported that staff is working with Grass Lake Watershed. There is adequate size and area for storm water storage. Member Wilke asked for details of water running to the south (Water will be conveyed to ponds, then to Lake Owasso). Troy Duncan asked for comparison of six unit to eight unit preliminary plat approvals. Thomas Paschke explained added requirements of the Planned Unit Development. Is there an incremental difference between six large houses and eight smaller houses (Staff estimates similar numbers). Deb Bloom noted that the City assumes a 25% impervious coverage of the site. Member Mulder asked what staff and developer requirements would be completed prior to Council review approval (grading, drainage, tree preservation and landscaping and terms and conditions of the PUD). When Council gets the second review and hearing, what details will be available? (materials, landscaping, sized driveway sharing, home owners agreement). Member Mulder asked for details of the project staging. What can be expected? Thomas Paschka explained the PUD required staging plan. Is there a time frame for completion of the project? (Thomas Paschke noted there is no time line for completion, the project is subject to market conditions, but the PUD would restrict what could be built). Member Mulder asked if assessed public improvement costs and connection charges would be attached to property (yes, estimated $250,000 minimum). Member Olson asked for the method of calculation for impervious coverage of the 2.5 acre site; is it inclusive of cul-de-sac and sidewalks? (No, similar to the standard single-family area). No further comments were offered. Chair Rhody closed the hearing. Motion: Member Duncan moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and the Planned Unit Development "General Concept", creating an eight lot residential development with 8 single-family, owner occupied, detached structures, with undivided common areas and common maintenance, as illustrated in the application dated December 13, 2001, based on the findings in the project report dated January 2, 2002 and with the conditions from Section 3.2 through 3.7 of the project report dated January 2,2002. Member Mulder explained that modifications of the PUD would require a hearing for the amendment process. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 b. Planning File 3350: (Continued Hearing) Adoption of Annual (2001) Comprehensive Plan Revisions and declaring the 2002 Capital Improvement Program consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.