pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-� .--. 3une 2, 2009 Mr.'C'homas Paschke Roseville Cih� Planner City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55 1 1 3-5446 Etnail: thomas.uaschke an,ci.roseville.mn.us Re: 2025 Count�� Road B Orchard project revision #3 Dear Mr. Paschke, This sen�es as a letter voicing our continued concerns regarding the proposed land use amendment and revised general concept pla►med unit development of a SS-unit, 3-story Active Senior Living Community Building at 2625 Count Road B. Our concerns and opposition continue to fall into three areas: 1. The Proposed Land Use Amendment While the Planning Department has instructed the Planning Commission to ignore this aspect of the upcaming meeting, the record needs to be corrected both in the minutes and in forwarding any new proposal to the City Council. Specifically, the Roseville Planning Commission, per City Code Section 201.07 has recotnmended to the City Council to TURN DOWN the Comprehensive Plan change requested by the Planning Departrnent and Mr. A4ueller as the vote does not meet the required 5/7s threshold. 7'he Planning Commission vote was 4 to 3. A copy of the code is highlighied here: 201.07: PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTION OF CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: i'he Planning Commission may, at any time, recommend to the City Council, the adoption of the Ciry Comprehensive Plan, any section of it or any substantia! amendment thereof. Before making such � recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing, as provided for in Chapter 108 of thic Code. The recommendation by the Planning Conunission to the City Council shal] be by a resolution of the Commission, approved by the affirmative vo[es of nor less than S/7ths of its tota! membership. , We agree with the Planning Commission's vote tl�at a 2-step increase in the Comprehensive Plan requested by a I)eveloper is inappropriate for this paroel. Financial gain at the expense of its neighbors lacks good planning principals and does not adeqaately addn:ss other possible, better use. Where are the parl:s "planned" for our area af Roseville? Was medium density considered for this parce]? Who contacted the Roseville Historical Society about the heritage aspect of this property? As currently configured �ur area of Roseville is a model blend of inedium density. high density and single residence. Any substantial change proposed by a developer, in place of proper pianning, should only be done if there is overwhelming consensus that the project as proposed has nierit to all interested parties. The medium density designation of our property at 1995 West County Road B in the Comprehensive Plan is ill placed and is heing used by the Planning Depanment to help justify chis project. Through researcli, the only reason for this designation was to facilitate Mr. Mueller's acquisition of land to build the Ferriswood Association in the ]980s. While the Planning Department has informed us diat they would not support our initial inquiries to return our property to low density because of planning principals (busy street etc.) subsequent inquiriec by us to qualified developers suggest our lot could not economically be used to house a medium density project. So Nie neighboring "reality" is single resident, not medium density.