Laserfiche WebLink
'_ Member poherty asked why change from townhomes to single family. Thomas Paschke <br />�� explained the market changes and demand for single family homes, and the new proposal <br />_} was more consistent with existing adjacent single family homes to the west. <br />� <br />� <br />4 <br />I �:1 <br />LL <br />1� <br />I? <br />I� <br />Member poherty asked if there are other zero lot line units in Roseville (no, except for <br />the duplex townhomes). He asked what the comparable size of the homes versus the <br />townhomes was (similar). What is the coverage of the lots —is it more than 30%? Staff <br />explained the approved concept within a PUD had much more impervious coverage than <br />the single family homes because the single family homes will not have a rear yard <br />driveway for cars and trucks. <br />Member Pust asked if the siY homes would be placed on 1.02 acres (yes, the lots have 55 <br />feet of frontage and 132 feet of depth or 7,260 s.f. per lot). <br />I 4� Member Wozniak asked if the single family homes are similar in configuration to the <br />1(} townhomes (yes). Member Boerigter asked if the park dedication will be the same, <br />I� regardless of the housing type (yes, $1,000 per unit). <br />18 <br />1 t� Chair Tra}mor asked if the Commission should recommend all 4 actions or find that the <br />�� project is consistent with the original concept and recommend approval. The Commission <br />?] discussed the 4 motions. Member Bakeman note the only substantial change is the 6 <br />�� single family designs and lots versus the 6 town homes and lots. <br />�a <br />�� <br />�� <br />� �F <br />�� <br />�� <br />?�� <br />Motion: Member �akeman moved, seconded by �ember Boerigter, to advise the City <br />Council that the Planning Commission has determined that the Final Development Plan <br />and all associated documents are consistent and in substantial conaplia�zce with the <br />General Concept approved on October 20,2003 and recommend that the Roseville City <br />Council approve the following items: <br />� �� a. FINAL PLAT of The Villas at Midland Hills, Lots 1 through 6, Block l, <br />� = creating 6 home sites. <br />�� <br />.� 3 b. REZONING Lots 1 through 6, Block 1 The Villas at Midland Hills from <br />�� R-� Single Family Residence District to Planned Unit Development with <br />�5 an underlying zoning of R-1 Single Family Residence District <br />��� <br />'S ? <br />�� <br />3{) <br />��k <br />�f <br />�� <br />+� 5 <br />C. <br />VACATE CETAIN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS (as identified <br />and described in the resolution) that lie within Block 1 of The Villas of <br />Midland Hills. <br />d. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (planned unit development) and draft <br />Planned Unit Development Site Plan and Agreement, subject to conditions <br />of Section 6 of project report dated September 7, 2005. <br />�� Ayes:6 <br />•� � Nays: 0 <br />�1�i Motion carried. <br />Page 4 <br />