My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-08-05_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-08-05_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2015 11:30:36 AM
Creation date
10/16/2015 11:30:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 <br />Page 10 <br />too far away, while still allowing for some parking off Lexington Avenue and an <br />455 <br />aesthetically pleasing streetscape. <br />456 <br />Regarding grading of the site and levels for entries, Mr. Nelson clarified those levels, <br />457 <br />each accessed differently; and reviewed locations for employee, visitor and other parking <br />458 <br />and signage to direct that internal traffic flow for the best functioning of the site. <br />459 <br />Regarding concerns about an overlap to the east, Mr. Nelson stated he did not feel there <br />460 <br />was an overlap, even though the updated survey called out Lot 2, with that city-owned <br />461 <br />parcel overlapping on the development; and advised that a similar situation occurred <br />462 <br />between their internal lots with a current small single-family home on the lot. Mr. Nelson <br />463 <br />advised that the original plat was very old and inaccurate legal descriptions had occurred <br />464 <br />with titles over time, but in reality there was no additional overlap on the east to his <br />465 <br />knowledge. <br />466 <br />Specific to density, Mr. Nelson noted that this property was currently zoned high-density <br />467 <br />residential (HDR), and given the size of the parcel could accommodate about 118-120 <br />468 <br />units; with their development anticipating 115 units of assisted living/memory care; and <br />469 <br />providing for one guest suite for family, making a total of 116 total units in the proposed <br />470 <br />four-story building; with all parking at the first level. <br />471 <br />Mr. Nelson advised that even though HDR was the designated zoning for this type of <br />472 <br />density, with no access system surrounding the development according to current code <br />473 <br />requirements, the developer was willing to conduct a traffic study to address any <br />474 <br />concerns of the neighbors or city. <br />475 <br />In conclusion, Mr. Nelson stated that United Properties was a local developer, having <br />476 <br />worked in and around Roseville for a number of years, previously known for commercial <br />477 <br />developments, and then moving onto senior residential housing options, developing the <br />478 <br />first cooperative housing option in Roseville opened in 2004 at the former Ralph Reeder <br />479 <br />School site. Mr. Nelson noted this had served as a flagship development for their firm, <br />480 <br />and provided pictures of phases of the Langton Lake development and redevelopment of <br />481 <br />that area they’d achieved even during the recent recession, as well as additional housing <br />482 <br />options they’d constructed since then and over the last twelve years, and meeting a large <br />483 <br />need for various senior housing options and services in today’s marketplace. Mr. Nelson <br />484 <br />provided examples from other metropolitan communities as well and samples of their <br />485 <br />architectural variability. <br />486 <br />Chair Boguszewski noted that this proposed development was well within the scale and <br />487 <br />mass of current city code that was a potential expectation of this type of site. <br />488 <br />Mr. Nelson expressed United Properties’ interest in further development as negotiations <br />489 <br />continue for the adjacent properties (former Owasso School site); offering that their intent <br />490 <br />was to hold a joint open house for both sites and developments at that point. However, <br />491 <br />since this project was ready to go, Mr. Nelson advised that they had decided to move <br />492 <br />forward at this time for this part of the project. Mr. Nelson apologized to surrounding <br />493 <br />neighbors if this created any concern on their part in not giving them an opportunity <br />494 <br />through an open house to view the proposal and comment on it at that time, even though <br />495 <br />the size and zoning for this project did not require that such an open house be held. <br />496 <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Nelson advised that an anticipated 35 FTE (full- <br />497 <br />time equivalent employees) with a total of fifty employees, with shifts probably in the <br />498 <br />range of 25-30 employees per shift. Mr. Nelson further responded that he would <br />499 <br />anticipate peak hour traffic during those shift changes to be about 30-35 vehicles based <br />500 <br />on their other sites of similar size. <br />501 <br />At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Nelson clarified the entrances to the site from <br />502 <br />Lexington Avenue and Woodhill Drive in accessing the first level of the buildings as <br />503 <br />grading changes on the lot. <br />504 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.