pm_050907 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for September 7, 2005Page 3 of 10 h.The submittal of the draft restrictions and covenants for the single family home owners association must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director as consistent with the PUD and other related land use requirements. Chair Traynor asked if the change in housing was the only major change in the proposal (from townhomes on small lots to single family homes on small lots). Thomas Paschke explained the Council’s request for Planning Commission input. Member Pust asked for a definition of “zero lot line” homes. (“Zero lot line homes” are homes that have a zero feet of setback from one side lot line, but still have a required setback between structures.) She asked for clarification on the “common area”, which would be owned by all 6 property owners. She asked for clarification on the corner side lot setback for the southern most single family house (17 feet). Member Pust commended the developer for working with the neighborhood over the project development period. Chair Traynor asked if the rear (west) setback would change. Thomas Paschke explained the setback is similar to the concept approved for townhomes, except the single family homes would have more green space instead of rear paved driveways. The heights of the units and massing are similar (townhomes vs. single family). Member Doherty asked why change from townhomes to single family. Thomas Paschke explained the market changes and demand for single family homes, and the new proposal was more consistent with existing adjacent single family homes to the west. Member Doherty asked if there are other zero lot line units in Roseville (no, except for the duplex townhomes). He asked what the comparable size of the homes versus the townhomes was (similar). What is the coverage of the lots –is it more than 30%? Staff explained the approved concept within a PUD had much more impervious coverage than the single family homes because the single family homes will not have a rear yard driveway for cars and trucks. Member Pust asked if the six homes would be placed on 1.02 acres (yes, the lots have 55 feet of frontage and 132 feet of depth or 7,260 s.f. per lot). Member Wozniak asked if the single family homes are similar in configuration to the townhomes (yes). Member Boerigter asked if the park dedication will be the same, regardless of the housing type (yes, $1,000 per unit). Chair Traynor asked if the Commission should recommend all 4 actions or find that the project is consistent with the original concept and recommend approval. The Commission discussed the 4 motions. It was noted that the only substantial change is the 6 single family designs and lots versus the 6 town homes and lots. Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Boerigter, to advise the City Council that the Planning Commission has determined that the Final Development Plan and all associated documents are consistent and in substantial compliance with the General Concept approved on October 20, 2003 and recommend that the Roseville City Council approve the following items: a.FINAL PLAT of The Villas at Midland Hills, Lots 1 through 6, Block 1, creating 6 home sites. b.REZONING Lots 1 through 6, Block 1 The Villas at Midland Hills from R-1 Single Family Residence District to Planned Unit Development with an underlying zoning of R-1 Single Family Residence District c.VACATE CETAIN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS (as identified and described in the resolution) that lie within Block 1 of The Villas of Midland Hills. d.FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (planned unit development) and draft Planned Unit Development Site Plan and Agreement, subject to conditions of Section 6 of project report dated September 7, 2005. http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2005/pm050907.htm12/27/2005