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 11 <br /> <br />redevelopment area, and staff and the City Attorney are researching its inclusion in <br />the Tin Lakes area. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark noted that staff drew a distinction between this property and other properties <br />more interior to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and detailed those items in <br />Section 5.7 of the staff report dated June 6, 2007. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark reviewed site characteristics as they related to the development proposal <br />and site plan as presented; and reviewed public infrastructure for the proposed <br />development. <br /> <br />Staff recommended APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and General <br />Concept Planned Unit Development by United Properties for the property at 3010 <br />Cleveland Avenue N with a 93-unit age-restricted cooperative housing development, <br />with conditions as outlined and detailed in Section 11 of the staff report dated June 6, <br />2007; and further conditioned with condition (g) the proposed road coming into the site <br />would be exclusive of the parking area, privately constructed and dedicated to the <br />public; and condition (h) that the road from the east of the surface parking lot be thirty- <br />two (32’) in width. <br /> <br />Discussion between staff and the Commission included review by the Parks and <br />Recreation Commission; advantages of having a road with park access; ongoing <br />refinement to the plan with access to Langton Lake parking lot, which was currently <br />accessed through an adjoining industrial property with no legal rights for the City’s <br />public’s access; creation of a round-about and future south access to meet everyone’s <br />needs; review by the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation (PWET) <br />Commission; recommendations of the City Engineer, with many issues resolved since <br />the last meeting; the designated pathway remaining City right-of-way unless the PUD <br />was amended; and elimination of the original proposal for twin homes or duplexes in <br />the development due to adding the access road and lack of remaining space. <br /> <br />Additional discussion included traffic studies and impacts; park access; internal traffic <br />patterns; looping of utilities; future expansion of the parking lot as needs dictate, and <br />location of a pathway along the wetland area; sufficient capacity of the cul-de-sac on <br />this new public street; staff’s interpretation of potential impacts to traffic on Cleveland <br />Avenue; screening and parking provisions; and whether an EAW is needed for this <br />project. <br /> <br />Applicant, Alex Hall and Brian Carey, United Properties with ownership interest <br />in 2008 – 2010 Cleveland Avenue <br />Mr. Hall noted the elimination of the proposed twin homes in the spirit of compromise, <br />to create an access road for the park, noting the great impact on the proposed project. <br />Mr. Hall advised that, if this plan is pursued, it was the applicant’s intent to seek <br />waiving by the City of the park dedication fees and potential tax increment financing <br />assistance, given the impacts to the project by elimination of the twin homes. <br /> <br />Discussion among Commissioners and the applicants included: tree preservation; <br />screening between the project and existing residential properties to the north; a similar <br />project completed by the applicant in New Brighton; parking demands of similar senior <br />housing developments; outstanding sidewalk locations, due to staff’s recommendation <br />for a separation between the sidewalk and road, creating a boulevard effect; future <br />pathway improvements and privacy concerns between homes and pathways; and <br />shadow studies performed by the applicant, provided under three different scenarios <br />at different times of the day. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.