My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009_0817_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2009
>
2009_0817_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 3:07:03 PM
Creation date
8/20/2009 4:01:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
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
and amenities during the first phase to ensure a quality building as marketed and to <br />: garner public interest; and confirmation on the width of the cul-de-sac street (twenty-six <br />: feet) with a turnaround for the park, with that design still pending, and connection to the <br />: park, all at the expense of the developer, with minor design issues still being negotiated <br />: at the staff level. <br />: Chair poherty opined that this created a very motivated developer to market and <br />E complete as many units as possible, when all the fixed costs and infrastructure was an <br />E up-front cost for them, providing incentive to complete Phase II of the project as well. <br />Mr. Teppen advised that United Properties would prefer to build the entire ninety-five <br />units at this time; however, they are proposing the two phases recognizing recent <br />changes to requirements for HUD loans, and anticipating that more interest would be <br />generated by the public and potential unit owners once construction begins. <br />Commissioner Wozniak noted that the project had been denied at the Planning <br />Commission level the last time it was heard, with subsequent approval by the City <br />Council. Commissioner Wozniak noted that a the major reason for denial was based on <br />the scale and height of the building, with several Commissioners feeling there was <br />inadequate transition between the proposed building and neighboring single-family <br />homes to the north, including solar access and building height impacts to those <br />properties. Commissioner Wozniak asked the developer if, given the apparent difficulty in <br />filling the units, whether any consideration was given to building a shorter building rather <br />than phasing the same number of units. <br />Mr. Teppen advised that he was unable to answer that question for the developer. <br />Tom Goodwin, MRFA <br />Mr. Goodwin, on behalf of the developer, advised that the project's unit calculation was <br />based on HUD requirements, which have recently changed, and that their financing <br />requirements were driving the overall number of units. <br />f Public Comment <br />f John Komula, 3775 N Dunlap Street, Arden Hills, owner of Transwestern <br />f commercial property to the SE <br />f Mr. Komula advised that he was the owner of the warehouse building(s) on the south <br />f side of the proposed project; and clarified that there was written access agreements for <br />f the City to access Langton Lake Park through the north parking lot, at the front of their <br />f building. Mr. Komula noted that he was supportive of the project, noting that Langton <br />f Park Drive would now become the primary access to the park, with "soccer mom's" no <br />f longer charging through their parking lot. <br />f Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road <br />� Mr. Kotecki sought clarification as to the number of units sold to-date for Phase I, the <br />� projected timetable for construction, and impacts to assumptions of purchasers of units in <br />� Phase I if Phase II is not built, or if something else was built in its place; and whether the <br />� City would experience any liability for the original proposal not being accomplished, <br />� should a factory (as an extreme example) be built on the Phase II parcel instead. <br />� Chair poherty responded that anything built on the parcels that was different than what is <br />� approved in this PUD Amendment would need to go through the approval process again. <br />� Mr. Paschke advised that any liability for marketing and/or foreclosure risks would be <br />� borne by the developer, not the City, and that zoning would preclude anything other than <br />� the proposed residential use. <br />1C Chair poherty noted that the developer had seventy-four (74) verbal commitments to- <br />1C date for the units; based on the developer's experience, they anticipate that fifty percent <br />1C (50%) of the verbal commitments would become actual sales, providing for thirty-seven <br />1C (37) units with current commitments. <br />Chair poherty closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.