2008_0825_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts from DRAFT Meeting Minutes Attachment H Roseville Planning Commission June , 2,0071 d• . PLANINING FILE 07-006 4 . Request" by United Properties in cooperation with the Frieda Schultz Family (property owner) seeking approval of a, PRELIMINARY' PLAT, REZONING, AND GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PIED) to allow the development of a multi - stor► 9,31-unit senior cooperative at 3008 and 3010 Cleveland Avenue Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Pllanning File 07-006. Community Development Director John Stark reviewed request of United, Properties to redevelop the property at 3010 Cleveland Avenue N with a 93-unit age-restricted cooperative housing development. Mr. Stark noted that the property, was considered to lie within, though at the periphery of, the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; however, he noted that some public documents omit this particular property from the redevelopment area, and staff and the City Attorney are researching its inclusion in the Tin Lakes area., Mr. Stark noted that staff drew a distinction between this property and other properties, more interior to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and detailed those items in Section 5,7 of the staff report dated June 6, 2007. Mr. Stark reviewed site characteristics as they related to the. development proposal and site plan as presented; and reviewed public infrastructure for the. proposed development. Discussion between staff and the Commission included review by the Parks and Recreation Commission; advantages of having a road with park access- ongoing refinement to the plan with access to Langton Lake parking lot, which was cuirrentlly accessed through an adjoining induistr,ial. property with no legal rights for the City's, public's access; creation of a rotund -about and future south access to meet everyone's needs; review by the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation (PWET) Commission-, recommendations of the City Engineer, with many issues resolved since the last meeting; the designated pathway remaining City right-of-way unless the PIED was amended; and elimination of the original proposal for twin homes or dupllexesi in the development due to adding the access road and lack of remaining space. Additional discussion included traffic studies and Impacts; park access; internal traffic patterns; looping of utilities; future expansion of the parking lot as needs dictate, and location of a pathway along the wetland area; sufficient capacity of the cul-de-sac on this new public street.,-, staff's interpretation of potential impacts 1, to traffic ors Avenue; screening and parking provisions;. and whether an EAW is needed for this project,