pf_01481 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE NUMBER: 1481-83 APPLICANT: The Housing Alliance Page 3 9. Discussions with the staff, the applicant, and others make it appear quite obvious that there is considerable need for the proposed development in the City. There are long waiting lists for each of the other two senior citizens housing projects in Roseville. This concept, however, is different inasmuch as it offers ownership to the occupants rather than a rental condition. The Lyngblomsten Organization has successfully managed such facilities for many years in the Metropolitan Area, including a recently completed facility in Richfield. 10. Though the actual development plan and proposed structure is not the issue when considering a Comprehensive Land Use Plan change, it would appear obvious that the proposed height of this structure is an important factor in considering its appropriateness. We have suggested, therefore, that the applicants meet with the neighbors so as to inform them more fully of the proposal prepartory to the public hearings. There are, of course, higher structures in Roseville, some of which are immediately contiguous to residential areas. One of the mitigating factors in the proposed develop- ment as preliminarily planned, is the fact that all of the exterior action relating to the use of the building occurs on the west side. Thus, to a large degree the movement of vehicular traffic, action at the entrance, and other outside activity is substantially screened from the single family residential area. 11. With respect to the existing Comprehensive Plan Map (as attached) you will note that the boundary lines surrounding the park indicate the existing park to include properties projecting easterly, one lot depth west of Cohansey Blvd. That line is, in fact, in error, the existing park property is as shown on the drawing labeled "City Property Line". Were the park to be acquired as originally proposed, it would be more likely that the east line of the park addition would be as indicated by the dotted line, and consist of approximately 550 feet of frontage on County Road B. That compares to the 300 feet of frontage which is proposed to be dedicated if the pro- posed project is ultimately approved. 12. The Comprehensive Plan amendment process is one of review following public hearing by the Planning Commission, a decision is made by the City Council. If approved, the plan change is referred to the Metropolitan Council who then has ten (10) days in which to determine whether the change is of metropolitan significance. If not, the Council signs off, and the change is completed. We have discussed this change with the staff of the Metropolitan Council who have informed us that in their opinion, there is no problem as far as they are concerned. 13. Hopefully, the applicants in this case will have mitigated some neighborhood concerns that may likely be expressed by the neighbors. Perhaps such mitigation can occur through adjustments in the ultimate development plan. The loss of the park land would appear to be not a crucial factor. The dedication of additional land could in fact be construed to be a benefit. The use will likely not be intrusive, and quite likely fulfills a community need. The basic issue perhaps is that of visual impact on the mass of the structure upon contiguous residential properties.