Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, June 18, 2007 <br />Page 15 <br />and detailed those items in Section 5.7 of .the staff report dated June <br />18, 2007. <br />Mr. Stark reviewed site characteristics as they related to the develop- <br />ment proposal and site plan as presented; reviewed public infrastruc- <br />ture for the proposed development; and reviewed the Langton Lake <br />Park Master Plan, including the subject property, adopted officially by <br />the City Council in 1986, but not included in Roseville's Comprehen- <br />sive Plan. <br />Staff recommended APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, <br />and General Concept Planned Unit Development by United Properties <br />for the property at 3010 Cleveland Avenue N with a 93-unit age- <br />restricted cooperative housing development, with conditions as out- <br />lined and detailed in Sections 11 and 12 of the staff report dated June <br />18, 2007; noting that the Planning Commission, at their June 6, 2007 <br />meeting, voted 4/1 to deny the request. Mr. Stark noted that the Parks <br />and Recreation Commission, and the PWET Commission, along with <br />Design Review Committee (DRC) had each reviewed the plans, and <br />made suggestions that had been refined and incorporated into the pro- <br />posed project. <br />Councilmember Roe sought clarification of staff report requested ac- <br />tion under Item 13.1, regarding provision of a public road or private <br />road. <br />Mr. Stark advised that, since preparation of the report and evolving <br />discussions, staff was recommending a~ublic road via dedication of <br />right-of-way, and no longer supported or recommended a private road <br />via provision of an easement. <br />Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on several procedural is- <br />sues, including the scope of notice to the neighborhood for this pro- <br />ject; and submittal of the application and ultimate review and recom- <br />mendation by the DRC and the 60-day land use considerations and <br />whether it had been extended yet. <br />Mr. Stark responded that property owners within 350' plus further ex- <br />tensions had been noticed of the proposed project; and displayed a <br />