My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_0913_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_0913_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 2:05:59 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:44:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
313
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
7.2 On October 20, the Roseville City Council reviewed the "GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN <br />and approved the proposal with conditions. <br />7.3 The FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN has been submitted to the Community <br />Development and Public Works Departments for consideration of its final approval. The <br />proposed condominium is undoubtedly is a new building type in this area, and it sets a <br />new higher quality standard for redevelopment near public and semi public amenities. <br />City utility services already serve this site and have adequate capacity to support the new <br />structures. The developer has worked with the neighborhood on site issues. Since this <br />nroiect does not meet the thresholds, no EnvironmentalAssessment Worksheet is <br />reauired. The site planning and landscape architecture is well done, the architecture <br />matches the theme set by the new Country Club, and the earthwork engineering will <br />improve ponding capacity. The Comprehensive Plan encourages a diversity for housing <br />styles for all age groups — with that comes some changes in density. This is not unique — <br />throughout Roseville housing densities vary and adjoin each other (the city has had over <br />20 similar projects in the past 10 years). Since this is a parcel that is isolated fr� the <br />adj oining single-family homes and is located on a county collector road — as is <br />encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan, the proj ect will have little or no pedestrian or <br />vehicular impact on the adjoining neighborhoods. In fact for the neighbors to the east and <br />west, the housing which parallels Fulham may reduce noise and light from golf course <br />patrons. The Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the request by <br />United Properties, subject to the following conditions: <br />a, On site parking being clarified for all users, either via a Proof of Parking <br />agreement or through a cross parking easement with the Country Club, to be part <br />of the PUD Agreement. <br />�. Site lighting being reviewed by staff, which lighting is not designed in such a <br />manner to impact adjacent residents. <br />c. The placement of inechanical units being determined and proper measures taken <br />in design and location to minimize noise and visual impacts to adjacent residents. <br />�, The provision of all necessary utility, drainage, and ponding easements on the <br />final plat. <br />e. The hours of construction hours and contractor/subcontractor parking being <br />regulated through the PUD. Specifically weekday hours being limited to 7 a.m. to <br />10 p.m. and weekend hours being limited to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. (405.03D). <br />�� The applicant and City Planner working with the residents on a satisfactory <br />landscape plan that may include off site landscaping. <br />g. The applicant installing drain tile and sump pumps on the properties that lie to the <br />east of the condominium parcel. <br />_�- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.