Laserfiche WebLink
Reg��ar City Coancil Meeting <br />DRAF'I' Minutes o� Monday, June 18, 2007 <br />Page 15 <br />1 and detailed those items in Section 5.7 of the staff report dated June <br />2 1 S, 2007. <br />3 <br />4 Mr. 5tark reviewed site characteristics as they related to the develop- <br />5 ment proposal and site plan as presented; reviewed public infrastruc- <br />6 ture for the proposed development; and reviewed the Langton Lake <br />7 Master Plan, including the subject property, adopted officially by the <br />S City Council in 1986, but not included in Roseville's Comprehensive <br />9 Plan. <br />�o <br />1� Staff recommended APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, <br />12 and General Concept Planned Unit Development by United Properties <br />13 for the property at 3010 Cleveland Avenue N with a 93-unit age- <br />14 restricted cooperative housing development, wiih conditions as out- <br />15 lined and detailed in Sections 11 and 12 of the staff report dated June <br />16 1 S, 2007; noiing that the Planning Commission, at their June 6, 2007 <br />17 meeting, voted 4/1 to deny the request. Mr. Stark noted that the Parks <br />18 and Recreation Commission, and the PWET Commission, along with <br />19 Design Review Commiitee (DRC) had each reviewed the plans, and <br />20 made suggestions that had been refined and incorporated into the pro- <br />21 posed project. <br />22 <br />23 Councilmember Roe sought clarification of staff report requested ac- <br />24 tion under Item 13.1, regarding provision of a public road or private <br />25 road. <br />26 <br />27 Mr. Stark advised that, since preparation of the report and evolving <br />28 discussions, staff was recommendin�a public road via.dedication of <br />29 ri�ht-of-way, and no ionger supported or recommended a private road <br />30 via provision of an easement. <br />31 <br />32 Councilmember Ihlan sought clarif cation on several procedural is- <br />33 sues, including the scope of notice to the neighborhood for this pro- <br />34 ject; and submittal of the application and ultimate review and recom- <br />35 mendation by the DRC and the b0-day land use considerations and <br />36 whether it had been extended yet. <br />37 <br />38 Mr. Stark responded that property owners within 350' plus further ex- <br />39 tensions had been noticed of the proposed project; and displayed a <br />