pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-� ^ 3�u recommendation upon, had been addressed to his satisfaction, and questioned �� why this project should not be considered differently than from the other similar �� projects. He added that the Planning Staff provided due diligence in their review �� and while initially opposed to the project he appreciated the way in which the ��' revised plan addressed various concerns and spoke in support of the project as �� presented. �� J�L .;�.�.: `.%F4 :>:;:, 5�� l. Chair poherty noted that he had not been a big supporter of the other iterations of the project, but complemented that Planning Staff and applicant/developer for their efforts in making significant revisions. Chair poherty noted that the mass and scale had been too large, but the developer scaled back the project in response to previous concerns expressed by the Commission and echoed Commissioner Best's comments and spoke in support of the revised project. :;�� m. Commissioner Gottfried spoke in opposition of the revised proposal and his :;;�u continued concerns with the project, specifically its height, mass and scale. He �� gave the developer credit for making numerous modifications to address previous �;nc; concerns, but indicated the project would need to loose another floor, reduce the �:> ; height, and that he would only be comfortable with medium density on the site. :;i�::' n. Commissioner Wozniak noted that he did not support the previous iterations and ��:; he does not support the revised proposal. He stated that he was impressed with :�� the modifications the developer and his consultants made to the project, however u��t.; the building was still too big. He expressed concern over traffic and the ��e intersection of Midland Grove Road and County Road B. Commissioner :�:� Wozniak stated he felt there was not enough changes between the plans, there �b� were still too many units for the acreage involved, expressed his preference in Mr. j>��: Mueller stepping-up and taking responsibility for the past errors that have been w%+w brought forward by residents in his projects. 5�,c 581 �i5�) $.;��>;. �a� �aZ� �� Jvi �, R �. �Lir o. Commissioner Gisselquist noted that this was the first official time he was seeing the project, noting that he had been following the past discussions as a resident living on the other side of the Fairview Community Center. He stated that on one hand it would be sad to see the orchard and open space removed, but sympathized with the property owner and developer's position and the need for directed development on the property. Commissioner Gisselquist indicated that the comparison table provided by the Planning Division in the report put things into perspective and stated that the developer had taken favorable steps to bring density down and that he would be supporting the project. p. Commissioner Cook stated that he saw no major issues with the proposal and that this type of housing is needed in the community. He indicated he liked the looks of the project and he would be supporting the proposal as presented. q. Vice Chair Boerigter recognized all the comments, support and objections received during the public hearing portion of the item. He continued by indicating the Roseville has limited opportunities for such developments and given the mandated of the Metropolitan Council and the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, from this perspective this was a worthy project and indicated his support for the project as presented. Vice Chair Boerigter stated that the project did have some impact on the Enzler and Stenson properties, however PF09-002 RCA 071309.doc Page 15 of 17