My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2009_0511
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
CC_Minutes_2009_0511
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2009 11:26:18 AM
Creation date
5/28/2009 11:26:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/11/2009
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 11, 2009 <br />Page 8 <br />Nays: None. <br />11. Public Hearings <br />12. Business Items (Action Items) <br />a. Adopt Resolution to Approve Art Mueller request for a Comprehensive <br />Land Use Map Amendment, Rezoning, and Approve General Concept <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD) to redevelop the property at 2025 County <br />Road B into a Senior Living Community (PF09-002) <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke provided a brief review of the request by Art Muel- <br />ler for a Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment, rezoning and general con- <br />cept planned unit development to redevelop the property at 2025 County Road B <br />into a senior living community; as detailed in the staff report dated May 11, 2009. <br />Staff recommended approval of the three separate actions, and a draft resolution <br />was distributed by staff as a bench handout. <br />Mayor Klausing questioned, with the numerous changes made by the applicant <br />following the last Planning Commission Public Hearing, why this case was not <br />back before the Planning Commission for further hearing. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the changes, while numerous, were not considered sig- <br />nificant in the overall project; noting that the concept plan itself was only concep- <br />tual or schematic, and was intended to only meet general parameters, at which <br />time the architects and engineers would move forward with a final plan for ap- <br />proval. <br />Councilmember Johnson noted, in reviewing the Planning Commission meeting <br />minutes, nothing indicated why the PUD was turned down. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the Commission didn't support the proposal before them <br />that evening, based on the density and building design; however, noted that the <br />revised design addressed a number of their concerns. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned whether this project would fit better in an R-7 <br />Zone, rather than an R-3, with underlying PUD. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that staff had reviewed the application against an R-3 Zon- <br />ing District, and that he therefore couldn't comment on the R-7 District. <br />Applicants: Developer Art Mueller; Tim Johnson, Station 19 Architects; and <br />Property Owner Andrew (Andy) Weyer <br />Mr. Johnson provided several bench handouts for City Council information, in- <br />cluding additional elevations from the Steve Enzler property; and a project team <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.