pm_090308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

information meetings to be held with potential tenants. Mr. Hall advised that the other Roseville facility was 100% occupied, with a waiting list. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Hall reviewed the makeup of the developer’s management organization, with it yet to be determined if that partner would be a financial partner or would co-own the building. Mr. Hall advised that United would manage the coop building; but that they would be looking at outside expertise or management from someone well-versed in managing assisted living facilities and for operating the assisted living building, with the developer already having contacted 3-4 different groups, each expressing different ideas on the unit mix. Mr. Hall advised that United Properties was looking to branch out from senior coop facilities, into ownership of assisted living facilities to further expand their portfolio. Mr. Teppen thanked staff for their work and guidance, and their direction to-date; and for their excellent job in presenting the project at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Teppen highlighted various components of the project intended by the developer, including permeable pavers in parking areas to cleanse storm water, both as a way to dress up aesthetics and to lower impacts and promote green design principles; proposed storm water pond in the SE corner of the lot, with a decorative pond, and possible fountain, at the front of the building to treat water and improve runoff rates to as good or even better than pre-development conditions; approval from the watershed district for the coop building already having been submitted; formal and substantial landscaping along the front entrance, with the Cleveland Avenue street presence; and willingness of the developer to work with staff on additional design initiatives to make the pathway along Cleveland more pedestrian-friendly, and working on potential landscaping amenities along the north side of Langton Lake Drive. Mr. Teppen noted that one concern of the developer would be not to remove the trees they’d worked so hard to preserve on the north side of the road. Discussion included confirmation that there was currently a sidewalk on Cleveland on the west side, with the developer proposing an additional sidewalk on the development side of Cleveland, and continuing the sidewalk as areas develop; proposed setbacks for the sidewalk based on its location and available rights-of- way; and preferences expressed from City Engineer Debra Bloom for several options and design recommendations, considering existing utilities and for safety, with the developer proposing a green boulevard from the back of the curb, then the pathway. Mr. Teppen advised that it was the developer’s intent that all water on the site would run to the south into the pond and wetland component on that side; the developer’s confidence that the number of proposed parking spaces was adequate for staff and visitors, and willingness to work with staff in determining proof of parking, to ensure sufficient green space, based on the use of the units. Mr. Hall concurred with staff that the developer was not interested in not providing enough adequate parking, but offered to further negotiate with staff on that number. Mr. Hall, when asked by Chair Bakeman, concurred with the overall conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Hall advised that there were only minor items needing follow-up with staff (i.e., building height clarification; rear setback recommendation; potential trails to the south of the coop building into the park area, and the developer’s interest in having that amenity for their residents); and willingness of the developer to cut paths through the land directly east and west of the wetland on solid, dry land, and to include benches to tie into Langton Lake Park. Mr. Hall noted that a key to selling this project, and a wonderful amenity to it, was the park and ability to access it beyond the parking lot to the trail head between and around the lakes.