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
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the turnaround on the developer's property; <br />however, noted that he was open to it being located on public property; and preferred a wider <br />rather than narrower road width for safety purposes. <br />Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the turnaround on public property, with no additional <br />width to the roadway; however, noted that he was flexible to locating it on the developer's <br />property if that was the way to achieve the turnaround. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that a public road was not needed as part of this development; that <br />the park land dedication be paid; and that areas be preserved next to the park, without removing <br />more trees; and that she would not support the cul-de-sac on public property or extra width of the <br />roadway. <br />Mayor Klausing opined that the turnaround made more sense on public property; did not support <br />extra roadway width; and noted that the roadway had been imposed on the developer at the <br />City's desire to access a public park. <br />Councilmember Willmus sought clarification from Councilmember Roe whether he would <br />reconsider his position if the cul-de-sac were constructed on City property at the cost of the <br />developer. <br />Councilmember Roe indicated that he would do so. <br />Mayor Klausing opened the meeting for public comment on this matter, with no one appearing to <br />speak. <br />Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the FINAL PLAT (Applewood Pointe of Langton <br />Lake) by United Properties for redevelopment of 3010 Cleveland Avenue N with a 95-unit age- <br />restricted cooperative housing development; creating two (2) lots for a senior cooperative, and <br />including no outlots for future development, and public road right-of-way dedication for <br />Langton Lake Drive, including all necessary public easements, subject to the conditions detailed <br />in Section 8 of the proj ect report dated September 15, 2008; and providing sufficient right-of- <br />way to construct the cul-de-sac on the developer's property on Lot 1. <br />Discussion ensued regarding staff report, Section 7.7 and dedicated easements; timing of the <br />right-of-way period at one year; and Mr. Schwartz's concerns, from a Public Works' standpoint, <br />that if there was going to be no connection to the existing parking lot, why the City would want <br />to take on the expense of this additional roadway, and asked that the City Council consider that <br />before dedicating public right-of-way. <br />As the maker of the motion, Councilmember Pust withdrew the motion; opining that the <br />developer should construct the roadway as a private driveway. <br />Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the FINAL PLAT (Applewood Pointe of Langton <br />Lake) by United Properties for redevelopment of 3010 Cleveland Avenue N with a 95-unit age- <br />restricted cooperative housing development; creating two (2) lots for a senior cooperative, and <br />no dedication of public roadway, and including any easements that staff deems required for <br />drainage and/or utility easements; for future development, subj ect to the conditions detailed in <br />Section 8 of the project report dated September 15, 2008. <br />Discussion included staff's concerns with implications to the developer with this motion (i.e., <br />private road changing setbacks and location of the building); focus on the park, rather than <br />connections to it; and the need for a turnaround. <br />Councilmember Roe opined that this motion is contrary to what was being promoted for this <br />project all along; and that the reason for discussions was the City's desire to access the park. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.