pm_840404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting -6- Berry indicated there is a history of opposition to elderly housing projects in Roseville. She indicated she has supported elderly housing in the past, and continues to do so. Matson indicated he has supported elderly housing, but he cannot support this project because of its proximity to Cohansey residents and its impact on the neighborhood. Pat Johnson indicated she has supported the project from the beginning. She has received many calls from seniors who support the project. She indicated she feels the building will not be the monstrosity that people fear it will be. Wiski indicated the rezoning from R-l to R-3A is carrying out the intent of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He also indicated he felt the variances requested are reasonable. Wiski indicated the special use permit to allow more units in the building is reasonable because the project is contiguous to other high density residential uses, and it moves the City forward in providing broad based housing alternatives. Wiski also indicated he does not feel that moving the building to another portion of the property will have an impact on the concerns regarding building height and size. Moeller indicated he felt the developer has done a reasonable job of fitting the building into the site. The City has a limited amount of land for developments of this type and a limited amount of projects of this type. He felt the benefit outweighs the impact on the neighborhood. Recommendation Pat Johnson moved and Wiski seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Housing Alliance request for rezoning from R-l to R-3A; variances to rear yard setback, parking requirements, and unit size require- ments; and special use permit at 500 County Road B, with the following conditions: 1) That the westerly 300 feet of the property be dedicated to the City for public park use as proposed by the applicant. 2) That the building contain 130 living units, and that the massing of the building and the development of the proj ect be accomplished according to plans dated March 29, 1984. 3) That the landscaping plan be subject to staff review and approval. 4) That the Engineering details be subject to staff review and approval.