Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />MikeHeffernan, 2044 Dale Street, asked if the 22% of senior housing occupied by <br />2 <br />Roseville residents was not controlled; how would the developers make certain existing <br />3 <br />Roseville residents occupied the proposed building? Has the Huberty property been <br />4 <br />appraised? <br />5 <br />6 <br />Brent Martin, 2559 Fisk, asked why the Huberty property has not been purchased by the <br />7 <br />City based on the 1998 Park and Recreation System Plan. <br />8 <br />9 <br />SteveBarrett, 2254 Aglen, asked for clarification on the decision making process. Chair <br />10 <br />Rhody explained the Planning Commission process. <br />11 <br />12 <br />RickPetry, 2568 Fisk Street, asked who would be at risk in the issuance of housing bonds? <br />13 <br />Has the Church investigated other parking and car pool alternatives. (Mr. Van Slyke noted <br />14 <br />the bonds are not the obligation of the City. Rev. Rice noted that churches have a difficult <br />15 <br />time getting church goers to use shuttle buses; convenience to parking is a big factor). <br />16 <br />17 <br />JordonThole, 911 Transit, asked if the Church has discussed this issue with the Park and <br />18 <br />Recreation Committee. <br />19 <br />20 <br />Public Comment: <br />21 <br />22 <br />AliceBeecham, 2700 N. Dale, stated she was supportive of senior housing in Roseville. <br />23 <br />There is a need for senior housing. <br />24 <br />25 <br />Father Walter Sohacki, St. Rose of Lima Church, stated he supported the new senior <br />26 <br />housing; there is a need for many senior housing units. <br />27 <br />28 <br />Phil Stokes, 2777 Galtier, stated he supported new senior housing. Seniors can be good <br />29 <br />monitors in the park. Central will have more homeowners near the park; a visually <br />30 <br />pleasing building will be built; Prince of Peace will be able to continue to support/care of <br />31 <br />the community. <br />32 <br />33 <br />RichardHoosack, 1047 Brooks, expressed concern about visual impact of those who live <br />34 <br />on the park’s edge. Central Park is supposed to be a nature area. A building this close to <br />35 <br />the park is not an enhancement to the Park. <br />36 <br />37 <br />TimHassing, 1035 Brooks, is concerned about visual impact and is concerned with <br />38 <br />housing in middle of park system. It should be kept a park. <br />39 <br />40 <br />MichelleHubble, 966 Woodville,Lakeridge Health Care Center, noted that 1500 patients <br />41 <br />are cased for per year in her facility. Many patients go to low care facilities or affordable <br />42 <br />independent senior housing. She supports the project. <br />43 <br />44 <br />BillDrinen, 2426 Cohannsey, supports the project, good for City taxes and park, and good <br />45 <br />for church. <br />46 <br />47 <br />ShonaDockter, 2479 Churchill St., opposes the project as an erosion of green space. <br />48 <br />49 <br />DwendaGjerdingen, 2553 Fisk St., opposes the proposal because the open space is very <br />50 <br />valuable, a space to relax. How far do we go to fill space. She showed a map of high <br />51 <br />density housing in the neighborhood. Traffic is the major concern, increasing the traffic <br />52 <br />on local streets. She had pictures of the site. A building will destroy the sense of park. <br />53 <br />54 <br />Dr. Robinson, 998 Brooks, supports project adjacent to the park and responsible addition <br />55 <br />to tax base. <br />56 <br />Page5 of 12 <br />