Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />EarlMcMillen, 2777 Diona Circle, asked if 60 foot building will loom over park – not <br />2 <br />very attractive. He opposes the project. More work should be done to work with the City. <br />3 <br />4 <br />Joe Smith, 895 Transit, said he was opposed to the project. Four homes (on Victoria) were <br />5 <br />purchased for park use. The City did not purchase Huberty property. Will some others <br />6 <br />buy the property? Leave the site R-1 and Comprehensive Plan the same. The Senior Study <br />7 <br />indicated that 54% of seniors are in projects. People age in their homes longer; 78% of <br />8 <br />seniors are from outside the community. What are the incremental costs to the City? <br />9 <br />10 <br />John Poppas, 2459 Aglen, said many Roseville residents have moved to Shoreview <br />11 <br />because there is not enough senior housing. <br />12 <br />13 <br />Bill Howard, 2550 Fisk, said he has concerns about aesthetics, size (as long as football <br />14 <br />field), height (60 feet above lake). From an aerial view he pointed out slopes; the land <br />15 <br />slopes west and north along railroad tracks in wildlife corridor. The building is too big, <br />16 <br />too visible, destroys nature of park. The project has environmental impact on water <br />17 <br />quality. The impervious surface would add runoff and pollutants. The grading will be <br />18 <br />more intense than shown. More trees will be taken. Ponds do not meet NVRP Standards <br />19 <br />and would be ugly. Retention ponds do not clean up the site.High density housing is bad <br />20 <br />for the environment. The project will be within 15 feet of the County Road C right-of- <br />21 <br />way. The impervious surface is too much. <br />22 <br />23 <br />MaryZaun, 3116 Owasso, opposed senior housing because of high cost and poor design. <br />24 <br />She suggests in-house seniors care. This project is high income housing. <br />25 <br />26 <br />GordonThole, 911 Transit, opposes project because of possible encroachment into park. <br />27 <br />Housing is not needed. <br />28 <br />29 <br />Margaret Lackey, 3078 Evelyn, President of Friends of Roseville Parks, opposes project as <br />30 <br />does the Board of Friends. She opposed the three story building similar to Eagle Crest. <br />31 <br />32 <br />MarkGoheen, 905 Transit, noted that most churches have parking problems, especially at <br />33 <br />religious holidays. Parking is the issue, not senior housing. There still is capacity in the <br />34 <br />Prince of Peace lot. <br />35 <br />36 <br />Tom Johnson, 1678 Lydia, Roseville Central Park Foundation (220 acres), stated the <br />37 <br />Foundation Board was opposed to the project. The Board encourages the City to work <br />38 <br />with church to acquire Huberty property. The Board offered to work with the City. <br />39 <br />40 <br />KendraGoheen, 905 Transit, opposes rezoning of the property. <br />41 <br />42 <br />ChrisLyman, 2836 Merrill, noted that the park and seniors are both community treasures. <br />43 <br />He supported the project. <br />44 <br />45 <br />Ron Duffy, 2560 Fisk, opposed the project because of the negative impact on the Park. <br />46 <br />47 <br />BarryDreyer, 658 Overlook Dr., expressed support for project and lack of traffic from <br />48 <br />seniors. Seniors are used to integrate with children. <br />49 <br />50 <br />Tammy Peterson, 2926 Marion, supported the project because of the long term community <br />51 <br />benefit for seniors in the community. Most of the park volunteers are seniors. <br />52 <br />53 <br />Pat Johnson, 2986 Mildred, opposed the project. As a land use issue, this should be a <br />54 <br />comprehensive plan issue. This would be spot rezoning, not good planning. Stick to the <br />55 <br />Page6 of 12 <br />