pm_990414 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6. What is s.f. percent (700-1200 s.t. and one or two bedrooms) Jean Knaack noted that Lynblomstrom may be the developer (not Presbyterian Homes). Deb Bloom noted bike path is multi-purpose paved trail: the hiking trail is dirt. These paths would either be moved or acquired. The rail line is used 2-3 time per week. Member Rhody noted that 56 units with underground parking and other details from the staff report of April 14, 1999. Joe Smith, 895 Transit, asked: 1. Is there a program of exaction? (yes, park/rec fund) 2. Senior needs in community; what is needed for low income project? 3. Impervious surface on this site similar to last project? Dwenda Gjerdingen, 2553 Fisk St, noted that re-zoning and re-development would be needed; what are the priorities that go into the decision to changing the Plan? Kendra Goheen, 905 Transit Avenue, asked for clear idea of what the building/project will look like. Bill Howard, 2550 Fisk St., no tax increment if proposed? (no, with current proposal). Drainage, runoff, and height are not consistent with shoreland code. Thornton Gable, 1200 Laurie Road, noted that affordable housing is not available in Roseville. He explained that few sites are remaining. He noted housing in Bloomington, Shoreview, Maplewood is similar. Bill Nace, 2441 Aglen Street, stated that a building this size does not belong adjacent to the park. Barbara Lyman, 2836 Merrill, supported senior housing in the community. The new plan improves the screening as seen from the lake. Chris Lyman, 2836 Merrill, supported the project, noting that the property is not wilderness; not that fragile. The units remain 56 units, 2-3 stories. The plan is better, loss of a visual foot print. Something will be built on the Huberty property. James Ericksen, 2770 Midlothian Road, found that parking and safety improvements would be available. Katie Harms, 575 Owasso Hills Drive, explained the traffic safety needed along County road C for bikers. The coop housing does make sense for affordable housing. There is no public funding in this project. Spot zoning in not being done on this site. Mark Goheen asked why this was not spot re-zoning. Pat Johnson, Mildred Street, noted that the site is low density and R-1 re-zoning. Hildegard Mooney, 1986 North Lexington, opposed to parkland being used for Prince of Peace land. Ms. Goheen asked for the number of sites changed from R-1 to PUD. Why is the percent of Roseville residents so low in Roseville senior buildings. Member Rhody stated he liked the newer plan because it improves the visual impact; these are positive changes. Chair Klausing said he voted against the previous proposal because of 1) The cost 2) Visual impact. 3) Environmental impact. The new site plan improves the visual impact by moving back from the lake and adjacent to the north property line. There are more allowances for ponding; the costs are the same. Member Olson said she voted against the previous proposal but is concerned about impervious surface, height, shoreline requirements. Member Egli said she found the re-design more respectful of the park, but has concerns about design, design