Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2011 <br />Page 5 <br />Applicant (from the audience – off microphone) <br />197 <br />198 Mr. Winges advised that this was a great neighborhood and very suitable for this type of <br />199 facility. Mr. Winges expressed his interest in getting more information to the <br />200 neighborhood to rectify some of the misconceptions stated, noting that Suite Living <br />201 existing facilities were 44 beds or less at this time, and he suggested that some <br />202 neighbors may be confusing Suite Living with another provider in the metropolitan area. <br />203 Mr. Winges advised that none of their facilities had ever had any clients “escape,” and <br />204 offered to provide better information to neighbors on the firm’s operational philosophy. <br />205 Mr. Winges opined that it was terrific to see neighbors concerned, and noted that Suite <br />206 Living wanted to be involved with their neighborhood. Mr. Winges advised that Suite <br />207 Living thought the need for assisted living was great, and that this proposed location was <br />208 a very suitable one for this type of facility, and that demand was strong in Roseville and in <br />209 the immediate area for drawing clientele. Mr. Winges advised that there were no more <br />210 than eight (8) staff on site at any one time, negating the concept of a huge shift change <br />211 and related traffic concerns. Mr. Winges assured Commissioners and the public that the <br />212 firm had done extensive market studies to confirm this perception. Mr. Winges further <br />213 noted that none of the clients at their facilities drove a car; and their clients were high <br />214 needs for which Suite Living attempted to provide a high quality of life. <br />Unidentified Female Speaker (second comment) <br />215 <br />216 The speaker suggested a solution to the traffic problem shown on the site plan would be <br />217 to limit exits to Larpenteur Avenue. <br />218 Chair Boerigter advised that the pending traffic study would look at all alternatives and <br />219 recommend best practices for the site and its particular use. <br />Georgiana Gjertson <br />220 <br />221 Ms. Gjertson noted that currently, there was a sewer line in her back yard, and it had <br />222 already backed up once, questioning if it could take this additional development. <br />223 Chair Boerigter clarified that the City Engineer would address that issue. <br />Gene Anderson <br />224 <br />225 Mr. Anderson questioned where show would be stored in the winter on site. <br />226 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. with no one appearing for or <br />227 against. <br />MOTION <br />228 <br />Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Lester to RECOMMEND <br />229 <br />approval of the proposed assisted living facility as a CONDITIONAL USE at 621-637 <br />230 <br />Larpenteur Avenue; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6, and the <br />231 <br />recommendation and conditions of Section 7 of the Request for Planning <br />232 <br />Commission Action dated June 1, 2011. <br />233 <br />234 Planning Commission Discussion <br />235 Member Boguszewski advised that he would be voting in support of the motion, <br />236 concurring with staff’s recommendations and conditions, including those that remained <br />237 pending at this time. Member Boguszewski opined that he sensed and eagerness and <br />238 willingness of the applicant to work with staff to address pending items; and to work <br />239 cooperatively with residents in providing more information to them and addressing their <br />240 concerns. Member Boguszewski further opined that he was sympathetic with existing <br />241 traffic concerns in the area; however, thought that this use qualitatively was a vast <br />242 improvement over past uses as a multi-tenant and/or strip mall use. While street access <br />243 for a left turn off Alta Vista is a concern, Member Boguszewski opined that it is not <br />244 relevant to this specific use, but proved difficult no matter what use was on the site; and <br />245 suggested that this was not the venue or body to work with to address streets, signage <br />246 and potential route changes. Member Boguszewski expressed his assurance that any <br />247 pending issues would be resolved between staff and the developer during the <br />248 development process. <br /> <br />