pm_880406 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION page# 8 Wednesday, April 6, 1988 to the desires of the Grasslake Water Management Organization. Webb responded that only a very small portion of the site drains to the NE, which is necessary because of the topography, and that a skimmer would be provided to minimize the impact of the runoff on the lake. Honchell indicated that the only plan which would be approved would be for a very small portion of the drainage to go NE, while the majority would have to go to the south. Honchell pointed out that the height of the building on the west elevation would be 32 feet at maximum, and that the east elevation 42 feet maximum. DeBenedet questioned the number of persons which would be occupying each unit, and a number of employees that would be present on the site. Webb explained that it would be one person per unit, wi th the exception of some one. bedroom units, which could be occupied by couples. Webb summarized the type and number of employees which would be present on the site. Stokes questioned how many of the units might be occupied by Roseville residents. Webb responded that the people that occupy the structure would, in all likelihood, come from within a four mile radius of the structure. Berry questioned the type of cost of care which would be provided, and expressed concern that the cost would not be affordable to Roseville residents. Johnson informed the commission that she needed to be comfortable that Roseville citizens can afford the use and whether this was the best use of that particular site. Webb pointed out that the potential market is acceptable to them and to their lender, and that their statistics indicate that there were 3,266 households within a four mile radius who are 75 or older. 36% of these households have an income over $20,000.00. Bob Slater, the owner of the marina, indicated that he was happy and excited about the proposed use of the site, and that he was pleased with the relationship that he had with the developer. Johnson closed the public hearing. DeBenedet asked for clarification concerning the comprehensive plan, rezoning, special use permit and variance. Dahlgren indicated that the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning would go with the land, while the special use permit and variances could be conditioned on this particular plan. Dahlgren also pointed out that if the property were rezoned and the Comprehensive Plan changed, any mUlti-family project, not just a senior project, could be built on that site, as long as it met the standards of the ordinance. DeBenedet expressed concerns about the amount of the building and pavement on the property, that the density variance was major, and that parking would be