Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission MeetingPage of 12 <br />? <br />that amended motion of approval. <br />Member Gitzen echoed the comments made by his colleagues, stating he found this iteration a <br />vast improvement from the last one in lessening existing runoff as well as any new drainage. <br />Member Gitzen spoke in support of the motion. <br />Chair Boguszewski also agreed with his colleagues, and suggested revised terminology for <br />Condition D to the makers of the motion, which they agreed with. <br />MOTION RESTATED AS REVISED <br />Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to the City <br />Council approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of the property at 2201 Road; as <br />detailed and based on the information and analysis, and as conditioned and outlined in the <br />project report dated December 2, 2015; <br />amended to emphasize Condition D as follows: <br />The applicant shall create and maintain a homeowners association for the \[longterm\] <br />??? <br />\[permanent and ongoing\] maintenance of the private infrastructure. All documents shall be <br />reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, Public Works Department, and Community <br />Development Department. <br />? <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />For the benefit of the public, Member Murphy asked how questions were addressed and answers <br />conveyed if unable to be answered tonight. <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested it would be incumbent for staff or the City Council to address those <br />issues before their subsequent approval. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that, upon review of tonights draft meeting minutes, if additional information <br />? <br />was needed before the request moved forward to the City Council, staff would do so and include <br />them in their updated report to the City Council. Mr. Paschke clarified that the Citys Planning and <br />? <br />Engineering staff would continue their ongoing review and monitoring of the development process. <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski and for the benefit of the public, Mr. Paschke advised that <br />this request was tentatively scheduled for a City Council meeting agenda in January of 2016. <br />b.PLANNING FILE 15025 <br />? <br />Request by United Properties, Inc., in conjunction with Roseville Area School District No. <br />623 (property owners) for approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT of 2659 Victoria Street <br />hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PLANNING FILE 15025 at:24 p.m. <br />?? <br />With this proposed action at tonights Planning Commission, Chair Boguszewski asked staff to <br />? <br />clarify whether ownership of this property had yet passed Independent School District 623 to <br />United Properties. Chair Boguszewski also sought clarification from staff on the quorum needed for <br />a vote on this request. <br />City Planner Paschke advised that the Purchase Agreement remained pending on tonights <br />? <br />preliminary plat approval, and was a multifaceted project also involving cityowned property. Mr. <br />?? <br />Paschke noted that part of the conditions of the Purchase Agreement was having this preliminary <br />plat in place in order to facilitate the sale of Lot 2, the park property to the city, which was the main <br />purpose of tonights requested action. Mr. Paschke advised that a simple majority vote or 4 votes <br />? <br />would be needed for this proposed action. <br />Chair Boguszewski advised that as a memberelect to the I.S.D. 623 School Board, to avoid a <br />? <br />potential conflict of interest, he would participate in discussion and continue to chair the meeting, <br />but would abstain from voting on the request. <br />Member Murphy also advised that, as a member of the Board of Directors for a Senior Cooperative <br />property in Roseville with a continuing relationship with United Properties, he would recuse himself <br />from participating in this requested action, also to avoid any potential conflict of interest. <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke provided a brief history of this request as detailed in staff report, <br />and based on staffs analysis, reported that staff recommended approval of the request. <br />? <br />Member Gitzen questioned if the City hadnt at one point requested Lot 2 as an outlot. Member <br />? <br />Gitzen asked if it was subsequently sold, was it a buildable lot. <br />file:///R:/CommDev/PLANNING_AND_ZONING/PLANNING_COMMISSION/Minutes/...4/11/2016 <br /> <br />