pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

--• .. Attachment I EXTRACT OF THE .TUNE 3, 2009 DRAFT ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES d. PLANNING FILE 09-002 Review of the revised request by Art Mueller for approval of a GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT to redevelop the property at 2025 County Road B into a senior living community (PF 09-002) Vice Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 09-002 at 7:54 p.m. City Planner Thomas Paschke noted the correct Item Description provided in the Request for Planning Commission action dated June 3, 2009, rather than the inaccurate description on the meeting agenda; and in following the specific charge ro the Planning Commission from the May 11, 2009 City Council meeting, as detailed in Section 7.8 of the staff report. Mr. Paschke noted that all other related actions had previously been acted upon by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council. For the record, Mr. Paschke noted receipt of a letter dated June 2, 2009 from Steve and Kathy Enzler; and three (3) e-mails received by Chair poherty and or staff, and with copies provided to Commissioners and copies made available to the public in the baek of the Couneil Chambers. Vice Chair Boerigter noted receipt of those items into the record, attached hereto and made a part thereof. Mr. Paschke reviewed staff's analysis of the revised GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED LTNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) by Art Mueller (in cooperation with Sue and Andrew Weyer — properiy owners) to redevelop the property at 2025 County Road B into a 3-story, 55-unit senior living community. Mr. Paschke noted that the staff report, in Section 7.7, provided comparison data of seven (7) previously multiple-family residential projects and their characteristics to provide perspective for this requested project. Mr. Paschke noted that, on two (2) previous occasions, staff had gone on record as having no issues or concerns with the proposed volume of traffic with the addition of this project; as well as functioning of specific intersections and their design to accommodate this type of development. Mr. Paschke noted that Midland Grove Road was a public street and that it was sufficient to handle additional traffic volume. Mr. Paschke advised that staffs recommendation, as well as that ofthe Design Review Committee remained intact with the modified design for this project. Mr. Paschke noted that the applicant had mitigated many issues, concerns and impacts addressed by previous public comment; and recognized that soine remained opposed to the project itself. Mr. Paschke advised that staff, whose recommendations were based on established policies for guidance, opined that this project with its modifications and adjacent high- and medium-density residential uses was a good fit for the neighborhood and that staff continued to support the project. Staff recommended approval of the request as presented; based on the comments and findings of Section 4 and the conditions of Section 5 of the project report dated June 03, 2009.