Laserfiche WebLink
8.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />8.1 Staff recommends approval of the proposal by Moser and Zawadski Homes in <br />cooperationwith the Mounds View School District for a COMPREHENSIVE LAND <br />USE MAP AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, REZONING, and GENERAL <br />CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT for an 8 lot single family and 6 unit <br />town home development at 2959 Hamline Avenue based on the Staff review of Sections 4 <br />and 6 and the comments, findings, and conditions of Section 7 of the project report dated <br />August 2,2006. <br />8.2 Next Steps: Assuming the City Council approves the General Concept Plan on August 28 <br />a Final Development Plan could be submitted for action by the City Council in October. <br />A Final Development Plan action must include approval the final development plan, the <br />planned unit development agreement, and the zoning ordinance. As listed in the staff <br />report, there is a significant amount of developer work and staff review to be completed <br />�ric�r to the Counci� final action on the subdivision, development plan and agreerr�ent. <br />9.0 �'i.,ANNING COMMISSION ACTION: <br />9.1 On August 2,2006, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding <br />the Mounds View School District redevelopment. At the meeting 7 residents addressed <br />the Commission expressing concern over the proposed four unit town home. <br />Specifically, most citizens who spoke indicated concern over the four unit town home and <br />its density not keeping with that of the direct vicinity. Others expressed concern over the <br />four unit's access to Haml'zne Avenue, and another submitted a design that would flip the <br />town homes and single family homes. <br />9.2 The Commissionwas split over the design change from the SKETCH PLAN of June 7, <br />2006, where three twin homes were reviewed and not a four unit complex. Two of the <br />three Commissionersopposed to the four unit design indicated that they were supportive <br />of town homes and the proposed density, but that a four unit structure was a mass that <br />was considered too dense for this area. <br />9.3 Other Commissioners supported the proposal as presented indicating the very mix of this <br />neighborhood and lack on specific identity, as well as a proposal that achieved the <br />Comprehensive Plan directive regarding housing and that the submitted plan met the <br />goals and objections of the City Housing Plan as approved by the Housing and <br />Redevelopment Authority. <br />9.4 The Commission did recommend during its vote on the GENERAL CONCEPT PUD, to <br />include two additional conditions. One to create diversity in housing design, and the <br />second to require th� staff and developer to explare the establishment of creating town <br />home units that are only owner occupied units. <br />PI'3676_RCl� GeneralCoracep�_€182806.dac Page 10 of 10 <br />