Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 6, 2015 <br />Page 7 <br />As to the number of units, Mr. Messner confirmed that it would not change, and displayed <br />293 <br />a better drawing depicting the plans and location of the proposed addition. Mr. Messner <br />294 <br />noted the existing canopy that would be redone but remain in place. <br />295 <br />Specific to parking, Mr. Messner advised that there were no plans to reduce or disturb <br />296 <br />any stalls, and everything would remain branded as is, with only the addition of a small <br />297 <br />pool. <br />298 <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Messner confirmed that the pool would be an <br />299 <br />indoor, enclosed pool. <br />300 <br />Specific to ownership sign-off, Mr. Messner clarified that the property belonged to an <br />301 <br />association and they would need to approve the proposal, which was still pending at this <br />302 <br />time with only a preliminary plan recently submitted to them. Mr. Messner reported that <br />303 <br />the results of their decision would carry weight as to whether or not this proposal <br />304 <br />proceeded. <br />305 <br />Member Murphy questioned if what was currently outlined on the map was currently part <br />306 <br />of the common area for the community rather than part of the description of the current <br />307 <br />Unit 6. <br />308 <br />Member Murphy clarified that the reason for the applicant’s request, represented by Mr. <br />309 <br />Messner, was to present the application and take the lead for the proposed change on <br />310 <br />behalf of the association. <br />311 <br />Mr. Messner responded affirmatively. <br />312 <br />Mr. Messner responded affirmatively, advising that the only change in the original <br />313 <br />description would be an increase in the square footage. <br />314 <br />Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at approximately 7:28 p.m.; with no one <br />315 <br />appearing for or against <br />316 <br />Member Murphy stated that his only comment would be that this application represents <br />317 <br />only one owner of a shared community, who was proposing something. Under those <br />318 <br />circumstances and as a Planning Commissioner, Member Murphy noted that he found <br />319 <br />the application something he could support, while recognizing the need for the majority in <br />320 <br />the CIC to concur. <br />321 <br />Chair Boguszewski recognized Member Murphy’s comments. <br />322 <br />MOTION <br />323 <br />Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the <br />324 <br />City Council approval of the proposed changes to Unit 6 of Rosedale Corporate <br />325 <br />Plaza Condominium PRELIMINARY PLAT, based on the comments and findings of <br />326 <br />the staff report dated May 6, 2015. <br />327 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />328 <br />Nays: 0 <br />329 <br />Motion carried. <br />330 <br />6. Discussion Items <br />331 <br />a. Review contemplated City acquisition of land adjacent to Pioneer Park <br />332 <br />Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this request by the City of Roseville as <br />333 <br />detailed in the staff report; and clarified the role of the Planning Commission as also <br />334 <br />detailed in the report. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Commission’s review of the City’s <br />335 <br />proposed acquisition of the parcel and findings in accordance with that potential <br />336 <br />acquisition were only to determine if the acquisition was consistent with the goals of the <br />337 <br />Comprehensive Plan, and would be provided to the City Council for information purposes <br />338 <br />only and require no further resolution on the part of the Commission. <br />339 <br /> <br />