My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_070606
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
pm_070606
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2007 11:49:06 AM
Creation date
10/9/2007 11:48:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/6/2007
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 6, 2007 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />Commissioner Gasongo concurred with Commissioner Doherty’s comments regarding <br />development of the area. Commissioner Gasongo questioned if, upon receipt of <br />pending information, staff’s concerns would be satisfied. Commissioner Gasongo <br />reviewed options to 1) move the application forward to the City Council for their June <br />18, 2007 meeting, with the applicant having time between now and then to address <br />the outstanding issues; or 2) reject this application and have the applicant reapply and <br />provide the information necessary to consider the application, with the applicant <br />having more of a chance to get a straight-forward approval. <br /> <br />The applicant expressed that this was their frustration in what staff was requiring for a <br />preliminary site plan at this stage; and his being prepared to provide future <br />connections; however, noting that typically something is not schemed out at this level <br />of the application process. <br /> <br />Continuing discussion included the deadline for the review process; scope of the <br />project; staff’s lack of review of the site plan modifications provided earlier today by <br />the applicant; the high visibility and strategic nature of this property to the overall <br />development of the Twin Lakes area; road right-of-way ownership, official mapping, <br />recording, and future acquisition for roadway construction and right-of-way. <br /> <br />Staff reviewed their adherence to the application process and review period and their <br />rationale for requesting more information; inherent design guidelines; and limited <br />ability to require deviation from a concept plan once passed onto the City Council for <br />their review, and major changes requiring amendment to the concept plan. <br /> <br />MOTION <br />Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND <br />DENIAL of the request by Cent Ventures and AmWest Development LLC, based <br />on the absence of pertinent information necessary as identified in Section 8.2 of <br />the staff report dated June 6, 2007. <br /> <br />Ayes: 4 <br />Nays: 2 (Boerigter, Gasongo) <br />Motion to DENY carried. <br /> <br />Chair Bakeman advised that the application would go before the City Council for <br />consideration at their June 18, 2007 regular meeting, unless the applicant submitted a <br />written extension to staff.. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gasongo left the meeting at 9:34 p.m. <br /> <br />d. PLANNING FILE 07-006 <br />Request by United Properties in cooperation with the Frieda Schultz Family <br />(property owner) seeking approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT, REZONING, AND <br />GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) to allow the <br />development of a multi-story 93-unit senior cooperative at 3008 and 3010 <br />Cleveland Avenue <br />Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-006. <br /> <br />Community Development Director John Stark reviewed request of United Properties <br />to redevelop the property at 3010 Cleveland Avenue N with a 93-unit age-restricted <br />cooperative housing development. Mr. Stark noted that the property was considered <br />to lie within, though at the periphery of, the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; <br />however, he noted that some public documents omit this particular property from the <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.