Laserfiche WebLink
�� � � s„�;�"� :�'� sS�. i��'i � ''��� <br />EXTRACT OF THE MAY C, 2015, ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MINUTES <br />b. PLANNING FILE iti-ooti <br />Request by Cities Edge Architects for approval of a Preliminary Plat at <br />2i75 Long Lake Road <br />Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 15-005 at <br />approximately �:i8 p.m. <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized this request as detailed in the staff <br />report for Cities Edge Architects, in cooperation with the owners of the Holiday <br />Inn Express, to correct/modify Rosedale Corporate Plaza Condominium <br />(condominium no. 266), a Common Interest Community (CIC) Plat, requiring <br />replatting. <br />Commission/Staff Discussion <br />Member Murphy questioned if other members of the CIC had to agree to this or <br />had a vote in it, representing the view of the remaining participants beyond that of <br />the applicant. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the applicant could speak to that, but he agreed with <br />Member Murphy's supposition that majority support would be required to change <br />any boundaries or reduce common space area. <br />However, at the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that it, along <br />with other issues, would be part of the process in advance of but required for Final <br />Plat approval. <br />Chair Boguszewski questioned if there was anything else that triggered this <br />required action other than a change to the description in the original plat. <br />Mr. Paschke responded that this was the only trigger for the change based on the <br />lot boundary and description change requiring replattiing since this common area <br />could be considered a lot and therefore the description would need to be revised <br />for recording purpose with Ramsey County. <br />Member Stellmach questioned if this would prompt any change in the number of <br />units in the building; with Mr. Paschke clarifying that the proposed addition was <br />specific to a pool and associated mechanicals and was not for any additional motel <br />units. <br />Member Bull noted that the area proposed for the addition was in the parking lot <br />area with handicapped parking, and questioned if that would result in fewer <br />handicapped spots based on his review of the displayed sketch plans. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that handicapped spaces were addressed as part of the <br />Building Permit application process; and those inspectors would determine how <br />many spots would be required and their location, but that it was not part of this <br />planning process. <br />Applicant Representative Jesse Messner, Cities Edge Architects <br />Mr. Messner concurred with the presentation by Mr. Paschke. <br />