pm_020102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

aspects. The Accessible Space apartment building for the physically handicapped has a 40-year contract to provide handicapped housing. Member Mulder asked for clarification at second floor level to create an eave which would break up the face of the north wall. Could something add another dimension for the north face? Member Wilke asked for tenant "comings and goings" (metro mobility). Residents would be over 18 years, independent living, with bus service, some will need caretakers; services such as this and housekeeping are chosen by the tenants. Other facilities around the Metro Area are available (list provided). There is one in Bloomington and two identical buildings in Burnsville (staff will take pictures and review). Member Olson asked the number of vehicle trips per day. Do most tenants have jobs? Member Mulder asked for details on access ways for busses. Are there different accommodations along the street needed for handicapped? (designed to accommodate Roseville circulators, trash trucks, and delivery trucks). Deb Bloom explained the pathway system (east-west and north-south). Is there a snow management difference for this corner with this project (Parks attempts to remove snow within 24 hours). Parking lots may have to haul snow from site. Member Mulder asked if there would be a snow removal plan. Member Traynor noted it was an exciting plan with many leveraged dollars. What are the next steps? Thomas Paschke explained the process so design review and final PUD approvals. Chair Rhody explained he was happy to hear of future neighborhood meetings and asked for elevations from the easUnorth. The apartment residents to the south previously expressed concerns about headlights, noise and traffic. Are alternatives available? This is a good project for Roseville. He liked the parking tucked behind the building (no strip mall). Member Duncan asked for clarification of property lines along the east side. (The pond and patio are proposed along the east side, and the trees and buffer along the east side will be maintained.) Member Wilke asked for details of pad location - could it be moved? (There are not many site design alternatives.) Member Cunningham said the high-density apartments to the south should be compatible. Preserve green space to the east; reduce impact on townhomes to the north with vegetation such as flowering crabs. Reduce the impact by moving south? Brent Thompson, VSI Construction, explained the need for small owner occupied office condo space. VSI proposed 16,000 s.f. building (two stories) with a main entry and common space at the corner of Lexington and Roselawn. Dentist and doctors and other professionals are the primary market with four to five owners. The building will be similar to Accessible Space - stone, brick and residential siding with a hop-roof. No retail sales are proposed. Chair Rhody asked for details of size and parking. There will be access from parking area with two-story entry. Shared parking will be proposed. Chair Rhody asked for public safety access comments. Member Wilke asked for details and compatibility with the 1997 Cornerstone concepts for neighborhood enhancement of declining commercial corners. Member Olson asked for details; why a of two-story building? (flat site, expensive land, users need 3,000-4,000 s.f. with sprinklers). Member Mulder asked if there are basements in either building (No). The developer should pay attention to the long roof, with changed roofline, or other roof or dormer to change the visual image. Member Duncan asked if the wall and entry and landscaping will be the same as ASI (Yes). Member Duncan asked if ASI could use a two-story building rather than a three-story building? Mike Cronin said the site is too small; the tenants need short horizontal space, with vertical elevator space. 9. Information, Reports & Other Business