My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009_0817_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2009
>
2009_0817_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 3:07:03 PM
Creation date
8/20/2009 4:01:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
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
� from the applicant, Planning Commissioners, and/or City staff he was not opposed to the <br />� proposal. <br />� 7.3 Planning Commission member Wozniak expressed continuing concern over the height of <br />� the proposed multi-family building compared to the nearby single-family residences and <br />� asked whether the developer had considered reducing the height as a way to scale back <br />� the project instead of reducing its length as proposed. Project architect, Kevin Teppen, <br />� was representing the applicant at the meeting since Alex Hall of United Properties could <br />� not attend, but Mr. Teppen was unable to answer the question because he had not been <br />� involved in that level of discussion among the development team. <br />� 7.4 Several members of the Planning Commission inquired about what would become of the <br />� proposed Lot 2 on the PxELiMiNAxY PLAT (corresponding to Phase II of the proposed <br />� PUD AMENDMENT) if the second phase never came about. In the end, the Commissioners <br />� were satisfied that the PUD wouldn't allow any development other than the proposed <br />� Phase II and that the developer would be very motivated to complete the second phase in <br />� order to offset all of the fixed costs (e.g., building the new public road and the common <br />� areas within the building) incurred in Phase I. <br />� 7.5 While Planning Commissioners understood that the current proposal would have no <br />� effect on the 2008 decisions pertaining to the new public road and its connection to the <br />� parking lot at the Langton Lake ball fields, there was still some question as to what had <br />� been decided about the design of the turnaround at the southern end of the new street and <br />� who was to pay for it (and the connection to the parking lot). Review of the City Council <br />� meeting minutes from September 15, 2008 reveals an agreement between the Council and <br />� the applicant that United Properties would build and dedicate a public road and <br />� turnaround generally as shown in the plans submitted with this application and that the <br />� road is intended to connect with the parking lot at the ball fields. While the minutes do <br />� not as clearly reflect a decision as to who would build the connection between the <br />� parking lot and the turnaround (or when such a connection would be built) , there was <br />� some discussion of evaluating the parking needs relative to the ball fields (perhaps <br />� through the upcoming parks master-planning process) and possibly expanding the <br />parking lot in conjunction with establishing the connection. <br />H.O RECOMMENDATION <br />� 8.1 Sased on the information and comments in Sections 4-7 of this report, Planning Division <br />� staff recommends approval of proposed PxELiMiNAxY PLAT of the property at 3008-3010 <br />� Cleveland Avenue, subject to the following conditions: <br />� a. The lot line separating Lot 1 Slock 1 and Lot 2 Slock 1 on the plat that is <br />� prepared for filing shall be located within 50 feet east or west of its location on <br />� the PxELiMiNAxY PLAT revised June 5, 2009; and <br />� b. An approved new plat shall supersede the plat approved by the Roseville City <br />� Council on September 15, 2008 and the application for FINAL PLAT approval shall <br />� include a letter from United Properties acknowledging that approval of the new <br />� plat nullifies the previous plat approval. <br />� 8.2 Sased on the information and comments in Sections 4-6 of this report, Planning Division <br />staff recommends approval of proposed PUD AMENDMENT facilitating the two-phase <br />PF07-006 RCA 081709.doc <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.