2015_0608_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Extract of the May 6, 20�5, Roseville Planning Commission Minutes b. PLANNING FILE 15-005 Request by Cities Edge Architects for approval of a Preliminary Plat at 2175 Long Lake Road Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 15-005 at approximately 7:18 p.m. City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized this request as detailed in the staff report for Cities Edge Architects, in cooperation with the owners of the Holiday Inn Express, to correct/modify Rosedale Corporate Plaza Condominium (condominium no. 266), a Common Interest Community (CIC) Plat, requiring replatting. Commission/Staff Discussion Member Murphy questioned if other members of the CIC had to agree to this or had a vote in it, representing the view of the remaining participants beyond that of the applicant. Mr. Paschke advised that the applicant could speak to that, but he agreed with Member Murphy's supposition that majority support would be required to change any boundaries or reduce common space area. However, at the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that it, along with other issues, would be part of the process in advance of but required for Final Plat approval. Chair Boguszewski questioned if there was anything else that triggered this required action other than a change to the description in the original plat. Mr. Paschke responded that this was the only trigger for the change based on the lot boundary and description change requiring replattiing since this common area could be considered a lot and therefore the description would need to be revised for recording purpose with Ramsey County. Member Stellmach questioned if this would prompt any change in the number of units in the building; with Mr. Paschke clarifying that the proposed addition was specific to a pool and associated mechanicals and was not for any additional motel units. Member Bull noted that the area proposed for the addition was in the parking lot area with handicapped parking, and questioned if that would result in fewer handicapped spots based on his review of the displayed sketch plans. Mr. Paschke advised that handicapped spaces were addressed as part of the Building Permit application process; and those inspectors would determine how many spots would be required and their location, but that it was not part of this planning process. Applicant Representative Jesse Messner, Cities Edge Architects Mr. Messner concurred with the presentation by Mr. Paschke. As to the number of units, Mr. Messner confirmed that it would not change, and displayed a better drawing depicting the plans and location of the proposed addition. Mr. Messner noted the existing canopy that would be redone but remain in place. Specific to parking, Mr. Messner advised that there were no plans to reduce or disturb any stalls, and everything would remain branded as is, with only the addition of a small pool. At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Messner confirmed that the pool would be an indoor, enclosed pool. Specific to ownership sign-off, Mr. Messner clarified that the property belonged to an association and they would need to approve the proposal, which was still pending at this time with only a preliminary plan recently submitted to them. Mr. Messner reported that the results of their decision would carry weight as to whether or not this proposal proceeded. Member Murphy questioned if what was currently outlined on the map was currently part of the common area for the community rather than part of the description of the current Unit 6. Member Murphy clarified that the reason for the applicant's request, represented by Mr. Messner, was to present the application and take the lead for the proposed change on behalf of the association. Mr. Messner responded affirmatively.