2008_0825_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Use Plan. The r withheld approval of the plan, however, in order to seek further clarification on. the orni.ission of a park access road as identified in the 1986 "'*Langton Lake Park Master Plan"' (attached), The developer responded that they did not include the access road for two primary reasons. 1) the presence of wetland areas in the proposed park access areas, and 2) their conclusion that dedicating the property for park access (as shown in the 1986 "Langton Lake Park Masi-ter Plan") resulted in financial infeasibility of the project due to removal of developable area. In their response to the DR C, the developer asserted their- opinion that there would be other "less impactful approaches,,,*' that would allow them to feasibly, develop the site while providing the needed access. 10.,4 On April 19, 2007 the .SRC. met again to review the developer's response to questions ralsed, at the previous DRC meeting, At that rneeting, the DRC supported a recommendation to, approve the land-use application as long as a, concerted effort was made to identify an acceptable park access, road between Cleveland Avenue and the Langton Lake Park parking lot, 10.5 On April 2,7, 20107, the Community Development Director, 'Parks and Recreation Director and Public Works Director met with the applicants and with a design consultant representing the city. At that meeting, a site plan was developed that garnered general consensus among the group. That site plan is reflected, in the current application. 10.6 On May 22, 2007, the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commissioll (P'WETC) discussed the application. At that meetirig the group raised a number of questions that are in need of further review, including.- differentiating public versus private facilities, identifying sidewalk locations, further information on the proposed wettand, mitigation, adherence to wetland setbacks,, right-of-way width and the design of the proposed cul-de-sac. Many of those concerns have since been addressed by-. oi Further refinement of the park access road design specifications; o Staff's recommendation that the park access road be constructed by the applicant but be dedicated as public right-of-,way, and; oi Additional clarification on sidewalk locations., 11..0 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION 11.1 On, June 16, 21007, the RosevIlle Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider the request by United Properties for a Pretiminary Plat, Rezoning, and General Concept Planned Unit Development at 3010 Cleveland Avenue North. 11.2 At that ineeting, Planning Staff recommended approval of the application with a number of conditions. 113 During the Public Hearing, three members of the public, testifi.ed regarding the proposal. All three of the individuals testifyin.g opposed the development on a number of grounds primarily related to the height of the proposed building, the potential shadows created by the hei regarding traffic on the proposed road. Ight of the building and concerns