pm_061101 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 13 questioned what was proposed for the next phase, and how the entire project was envisioned. Mr. Rouda questioned the intent for senior housing, accessibility, and other amenities; and expressed caution in approving the project without knowing the overall plan. Ms. Greenfield noted that the applicant’s reference to senior housing, included that they would be age-restricted with at least one of the owners being 55+, would be multi-story condominiums, underground parking, ADA compliant, and having other amenities addressing the needs of the senior purchaser. Mr. Paschke reminded the public that future phases of the development would be bound by the same plans – the Business Park and 2001 Master Plan. Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane Mr. Callahan had numerous questions related to the actual identify of the developer, who actually controlled the property, and whether the current development agreement was valid with this applicant. Staff advised Mr. Callaghan that the existing contract was not part of the land use context being discussed tonight; and would be subject to amendment by the City Council; and assured that Rottlund Companies controls every property within the fifty-eight (58) acres currently seeking approval for redevelopment. Mr. Callaghan disputed staff’s statement; and additional discussion was held between Mr. Callaghan, Commissioners and City Attorney Joe Langel with respect to the development agreement; property ownership; and tonight’s land use application. Mr. Callaghan further disputed representations of proposed uses, seeking more specific plans for each site; road access onto Fairview Avenue; location and connections for Twin Lakes Parkway; comparisons of this proposal to the original proposal; interpretations of the Court of Appeals findings; and proposed number of housing units. Staff and Commissioners responded to Mr. Callaghan’s questions and concerns as appropriate; and Mr. Stark clarified that the City of Roseville is not currently involved in any litigation whatsoever as it is related to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Terry Moses, 1776 Maple Lane Mr. Moses opined that the City was “getting the cart before the horse” in considering this application prior to completion of the AUAR Update; questioned concept plan approval as being “final;” questioned the legality of this applicant and property ownership related to the existing development agreement; and status of properties under Eminent Domain action . Staff responded as appropriate, and reiterated their previous discussions related to the 60- day review period for land use cases; and the continuing update of the AUAR on a parallel track. Al Sands, 2612 Aldine Mr. Sands provided his historical perspective, referencing minutes from June of 2001 related to the Twin Lakes AUAR map and plan approved by the City Council. Mr. Stark responded to Mr. Sands’ concerns, addressing the findings of the Court of Appeals ruling and resulting determination that the 2001 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan served as the Comprehensive Plan; and detailing existing conditions and options. Mr. Sands continued to dispute staff’s interpretation.