My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Agendas
>
2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2016 4:29:30 PM
Creation date
4/8/2016 4:29:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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 CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, January 6, 2016 <br />Page 9 <br />concept project triggering this request for comprehensive plan and zoning re-designation <br />406 <br />and their perspective on changes or impacts to the immediate neighborhood. <br />407 <br />Mr. Paulson referenced preliminary plans as submitted, clarifying that their intent was to <br />408 <br />develop no other project other than the proposed assisted living/memory care facility and <br />409 <br />confirmed that the development team had no desire to do anything beyond that facility. <br />410 <br />Mr. Paulson further noted that, up to this point, the project remained at the preliminary, <br />411 <br />schematic design level, and no finished drawings had been prepared for submission. <br />412 <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewskiand Member Daire, Mr. Paulson advised that their <br />413 <br />funding analysis was exploratory at this point but they were not anticipating any problems <br />414 <br />funding the proposed development. <br />415 <br />While recognizing the broader scope of the commission’s task in making their <br />416 <br />recommendation, Mr. Paulson presented their development proposal and responded to <br />417 <br />discussion of staff and the commissioners, with most of the information provided done so <br />418 <br />specific to the proposed project and current developer’s desire to acquire the property <br />419 <br />and sought to mitigate the concerns voiced tonight. <br />420 <br />Mr. Paulson noted this was for a new assisted or memory care facility as presented in <br />421 <br />concept on the site plan, proposed as a two-story building with54 total units. Mr. <br />422 <br />Paulson noted that the current preliminary unit types and configuration was proposed at <br />423 <br />between 350 and 550 square feet for each unit. Mr. Paulson reviewed the property <br />424 <br />setbacks to the north (approximately 48’ along the closest point) and to the south <br />425 <br />(approximately 51.6’) with a closer dimension for an outdoor patio or courtyard area of <br />426 <br />the proposed facility, narrowed to 47’ on the west and 76’ on the east, averaging 30’ <br />427 <br />setbacks. As depicted on the project rendering, Mr. Paulsonnoted the average roof <br />428 <br />height for the facility would be 35’ at the very highest main ridge line along the entire <br />429 <br />building; and even though proposing 47’, the actual height would be reduced due to the <br />430 <br />fairly significant slope. <br />431 <br />Using current technology, Mr.Paulson displayed an actual rendering super-imposed <br />432 <br />behind topography at the end of the public road at Midland Grove Condominiums and the <br />433 <br />view to the south looking east on County Road B and depicting the actual view of those <br />434 <br />single-family homes across thenorth and facing the proposed development. <br />435 <br />Mr. Paulson reviewed the proposed density, actually somewhat lower than allowed by <br />436 <br />current city code; the amenities proposed for resident rooms (e.g. nurse call systems and <br />437 <br />wander guards to avoid unsupervised exist from the building). Mr. Paulson also reviewed <br />438 <br />schematics and how each floor plan would lay out from the main entrance point adjacent <br />439 <br />to a common area for dining and gathering activities, with the perimeter of the building <br />440 <br />with natural lighting for applicable activities and private rooms; with the center used for <br />441 <br />support services, such as mechanicals, supply, storage and other day-to-day operations. <br />442 <br />Mr. Paulson noted that a commercial kitchen, providing three meals per day for residents, <br />443 <br />would also be on-site. <br />444 <br />Based on the developer’s experience, Chair Boguszewski asked Mr. Paulson to address <br />445 <br />typical traffic for this type of facility based on 365/year operations, including visitors, <br />446 <br />deliveries, staff and resident trips off-site (e.g. doctor appointments, etc.). <br />447 <br />Mr. Paulson reportedthe map displaying 23 proposed at-grade parking stalls, 2 <br />448 <br />handicapped accessible stalls, and an additional below-grade (underground parking) <br />449 <br />proposed as part of this. Mr. Paulson further reported that the maximum number of staff <br />450 <br />at the building at any one time would be dependent on the level of care required for each <br />451 <br />resident, but historical averages for buildings of this size indicated a maximum staff of <br />452 <br />between 10 to 15; with deliveries by vans of small trailer tractors occurring approximately <br />453 <br />twice weekly (e.g. food or linens). <br />454 <br />Mr. Paulson advised the facility anticipated 23 employees per day, with thirteen present <br />455 <br />at any given point, based on shift overlaps and scheduling adjustments, with no more <br />456 <br />than 6 coming or going at any one time. Therefore, Mr. Paulson reported that they <br />457 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.