My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_070208
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2008
>
pm_070208
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/17/2008 2:45:11 PM
Creation date
11/17/2008 2:45:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/2/2008
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Feedback on proposed project <br />Discussion included support of the overall project, and specific appreciation for the use of <br />permeable pavers; statistics on the number of contracts signed for the co-op by Roseville <br />residents versus those from outside the community, with Mr. Hall advising that he didn’t have the <br />information available tonight, but could easily obtain it from their marketing department, and <br />provide it at the Public Hearing for the General Concept Plan. Mr. Hall estimated that <br />approximately fifty percent (50%) were Roseville residents, which made a substantial impact to <br />the community in freeing up single-family homes to younger families, and brought additional <br />students into the local school system. <br />Further discussion involved the rationale and influencing factors for United Properties in making <br />the building a co-op rather than condominium units; with Mr. Hall addressing various issues and <br />considerations in that decision-making, including financing, with co-op building financed through <br />a HUD Master mortgage, with buy-in tiers for residents, rather than individual mortgages <br />processes at a bank, making it easier for people; the incredible sense of community and <br />ownership by residents on management boards and committees for operating the facility, rather <br />than a full-time management company; the perception of condominiums in the current market, <br />with overbuilding in the downtown areas, and lack of marketability of them at this time; and the <br />prime market of MN and the east cost to the understanding and acceptance of the co-op housing <br />plan. <br />Additional discussion included confirmation that all deliveries and trash pick up would occur in <br />the basement level, with no outside structures evidenced; support for pathway connections from <br />the back to the existing pathway system; and construction schedule that would be dependant on <br />the municipal approval process. <br />Commissioners overall offered their support for the project as a nice addition to the <br />neighborhood; and the positive appeal for people in co-ops to remain in the same neighborhood <br />when needing to move on to an assisted living facility. <br />Mr. Hall noted that the entrance would not just serve the assisted living and co-op building; but <br />signage on Cleveland would denote its use for access to Langton Lake Park, and tie into the <br />existing parking lot and Mount Ridge easement. Mr. Hall noted that Braun Intertech had already <br />completed some environmental assessments, and their initial determinations for encapsulation of <br />asbestos materials prior to demolition of some or all of the three (3) homes; and their intent to <br />build the assisted living based on market demand, with pre-selling requirements only needed for <br />the co-op portion of the project, with those buyers usually able to wait out an end product, given <br />their need to sell their existing homes in today’s housing market. Mr. Hall indicated their <br />preference to build both at the same time, once they met the market, for construction cost <br />savings and less disruption to the neighborhood. <br />Recess <br />Chair Bakeman recessed the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m., and reconvened at <br />approximately 8:55 p.m. <br />5. Resume Public Hearings <br />c. PROJECT FILE 0013 <br />Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment of Sections 1010 (Signs) of <br />the City Code to Clarify Sections pertaining to temporary signs and Master Sign <br />Plans <br />Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0013. <br />City Planner Paschke reviewed several challenges in interpretation, consideration and <br />approval of temporary signs, as well as cumbersome process review considerations <br />since adoption of the new sign code last May, and suggesting further refinement in <br />execution, based on comments from sign companies and contractors. Mr. Paschke <br />summarized those items as detailed in the staff report. <br />Mr. Paschke reviewed size and materials to be used for temporary signage definitions <br />and construction materials; business and industrial “For Sale/Lease” signs; Master sign <br />plans; and enforcement; and developed proposed language to address current <br />Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.