Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />not Cleveland Avenue. <br />� <br />8.4 The Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area does not rely on a regional storm water <br />management system. Each site redevelopment, or a combination thereof, would be <br />required to create and manage its own storm water according to City Code and the Rice <br />Creek Watershed. Here too, efficiencies and better utilization of the land can be achieved <br />if consideration is given to a broader redevelopment area and plan. <br />8.5 The remaining utilities, such as electricity, cable, telephone, and natural gas, will be <br />designed and coordinated through the Public Works Department to be underground, and <br />utilize a joint trenching system where applicable. <br />8.6 Staff is recommending that the proposed access road be privately constructed to the <br />City's design standards and subsequently dedicated to the City. The recommendation is <br />that the road width be 24' except that portion west of the cooperative's parking lot, where <br />the road would expand to 32' in width in order to accommodate limited on-street parking. <br />8.7 A traffic analysis of the site was conducted by a registered Professional Engineer (P.E.). <br />This analysis (attached) concludes that approximately 160 vehicles will enter and exit the <br />site each day with no more than 6 vehicles entering or exiting the development during <br />either the a.m. or p.m. peak traffic hours. The City Engineer has concluded that the <br />existing public road system is more than adequate for absorbing this level of traffic. <br />9.0 PARK LAND <br />9.1 Because the property is required to be "replatted," park dedication may be required <br />consistent with State Statutes 462.358 and § 1103.07 of the Roseville City Code. <br />10.0 STAFF COMMENTS: <br />10.1 On March 6, 2007, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the application (see <br />attached minutes). While the Commission did not make any formal recommendation to <br />either support or oppose the plan, they did stress their position that any development in <br />this area adhere to the Langton Lake Park Master Plan. The Parks and Recreation <br />Commission revisited the issue at their May 1 meeting, but took no further action at that <br />meeting. It is anticipated that the Parks and Recreation Commission will review the <br />current site plan at their upcoming meeting on June 5. <br />10.2 On March 7, 2007 the Planning Commission considered two earlier iterations of this <br />application. The general consensus of the Planning Commission at that time was that the <br />proposed use was acceptable, but that a solution to park access would be necessary <br />before their final consideration. <br />10.3 On March 28, 2007 the Development Review Committee (DRC) met to review the <br />proposal submitted by United Properties. The DRC concluded that in "concept"' the <br />submittal to redevelop the subject properiy into an age-restricted cooperative housing <br />development is appropriate and not inconsistent with the Roseville Comprehensive Lane <br />PF07-006 RCA 061807 Paee 6 of 9 <br />