2009_0817_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� from the applicant, Planning Commissioners, and/or City staff he was not opposed to the � proposal. � 7.3 Planning Commission member Wozniak expressed continuing concern over the height of � the proposed multi-family building compared to the nearby single-family residences and � asked whether the developer had considered reducing the height as a way to scale back � the project instead of reducing its length as proposed. Project architect, Kevin Teppen, � was representing the applicant at the meeting since Alex Hall of United Properties could � not attend, but Mr. Teppen was unable to answer the question because he had not been � involved in that level of discussion among the development team. � 7.4 Several members of the Planning Commission inquired about what would become of the � proposed Lot 2 on the PxELiMiNAxY PLAT (corresponding to Phase II of the proposed � PUD AMENDMENT) if the second phase never came about. In the end, the Commissioners � were satisfied that the PUD wouldn't allow any development other than the proposed � Phase II and that the developer would be very motivated to complete the second phase in � order to offset all of the fixed costs (e.g., building the new public road and the common � areas within the building) incurred in Phase I. � 7.5 While Planning Commissioners understood that the current proposal would have no � effect on the 2008 decisions pertaining to the new public road and its connection to the � parking lot at the Langton Lake ball fields, there was still some question as to what had � been decided about the design of the turnaround at the southern end of the new street and � who was to pay for it (and the connection to the parking lot). Review of the City Council � meeting minutes from September 15, 2008 reveals an agreement between the Council and � the applicant that United Properties would build and dedicate a public road and � turnaround generally as shown in the plans submitted with this application and that the � road is intended to connect with the parking lot at the ball fields. While the minutes do � not as clearly reflect a decision as to who would build the connection between the � parking lot and the turnaround (or when such a connection would be built) , there was � some discussion of evaluating the parking needs relative to the ball fields (perhaps � through the upcoming parks master-planning process) and possibly expanding the parking lot in conjunction with establishing the connection. H.O RECOMMENDATION � 8.1 Sased on the information and comments in Sections 4-7 of this report, Planning Division � staff recommends approval of proposed PxELiMiNAxY PLAT of the property at 3008-3010 � Cleveland Avenue, subject to the following conditions: � a. The lot line separating Lot 1 Slock 1 and Lot 2 Slock 1 on the plat that is � prepared for filing shall be located within 50 feet east or west of its location on � the PxELiMiNAxY PLAT revised June 5, 2009; and � b. An approved new plat shall supersede the plat approved by the Roseville City � Council on September 15, 2008 and the application for FINAL PLAT approval shall � include a letter from United Properties acknowledging that approval of the new � plat nullifies the previous plat approval. � 8.2 Sased on the information and comments in Sections 4-6 of this report, Planning Division staff recommends approval of proposed PUD AMENDMENT facilitating the two-phase PF07-006 RCA 081709.doc Page 5 of 6