|
<br />Thomas Paschke explained the porch is best as proposed. The deck/patio between units may allow for pathway
<br />and small deck areas. A 10' or even 12' deck is the minimum usable. Proximity to the boundary line is most
<br />important. Decks and patios cannot be enclosed.
<br />
<br />Member Blank said new design should be better than this, higher quality, and better aesthetics. Big, long roofs are
<br />disappointing. Break up roof lines from back side of units, especially on Hamline Avenue. Consider ways to add
<br />exterior designs.
<br />
<br />Member Peper asked for details regarding the fire safety vehicles. Thomas Paschke explained it has been
<br />reviewed positively by the Fire Marshal. Access is from both streets and the shallow length of the private street,
<br />allows front in drives, with a back out in emergencies.
<br />
<br />Chair Mulder suggested the developer meet and work with the property owners to the north on Oakcrest.
<br />
<br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Stone, to recommend approval of a
<br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LR, Low Density Residential to MR, Medium Density Residential
<br />(town homes), as consistent with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan policies, as discussed in Section 5 of
<br />the project report dated March 3, 2004.
<br />
<br />Ayes: Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Ipsen, Blank, Mulder
<br />Nays: None
<br />Motion carried 6-0.
<br />
<br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Peper, to recommend approval
<br />of the Preliminary Plat, creating 8 town home lots and a common lot, subject to the conditions listed in
<br />Section 7 of this report.
<br />
<br />Ayes: Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Ipsen, Blank, Mulder
<br />Nays: None
<br />Motion carried 6-0.
<br />
<br />Motion: Member Stone moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend approval of the Rezoning
<br />from R-1, Single Family Residence District to Planned Unit Development with an underlying zoning of R-6,
<br />Townhouse District.
<br />
<br />Ayes: Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Ipsen, Blank, Mulder
<br />Nays: None
<br />Motion carried 6-0.
<br />
<br />Motion: Member Stone moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend approval of the General
<br />Concept Development Planned Unit Development Plan, subject to the conditions listed in Section 7 of the
<br />project report dated March 3, 2004, as amended by the Planning Commission:
<br />
<br />A. Sidewalk must be included in the Final Development Plan stage, which location depends on the supported
<br />private road access.
<br />
<br />B. The design of the town homes must be compatible with the general context and human scale of the
<br />neighborhood for both architecture design and building materials, including a hip roof to lower overall height (if
<br />possible) and other architectural elements to further enhance each structure and reduce the visual mass of the
<br />building, especially on the back side elevations..
<br />
<br />C. The Public Works Department must complete the review and approve of the grading, drainage, and utility plans
<br />proposed with the General Concept and Final Plan submittal. All plans, including the location of fire hydrants and
<br />utility services connections, require the approval of the Public Works Department. The Grass Lake Watershed must
<br />review and support storm water management for the development.
<br />
<br />D. Eight visitor parking spaces must be included in the development proposal, which spaces can be
<br />accommodated through the redesign of the private road, to include parallel parking or 90 degree parking. (Member
<br />Stone added to the motion: A parking plan which will maximize parking and reduce street pavement is to be
<br />approved by the staff.)
<br />
<br />E. Site lighting (pedestrian scale carriage style) must be downcast and not shed glare at adjacent properties
<br />(subject to staff approval). (as/Member Bakeman)
<br />
<br />F. On lots 2 and 3, 6 and 7, air conditioning (AC) units must be placed between town home units; on Lots 4 and 5,
<br />
|