|
Planning Commission Meeting
<br />Minutes – Wednesday, February 04, 2009
<br />Page 5
<br />Mr. Mueller advised that he didn’t have a count of how many attended, since many didn’t
<br />191
<br />sign in, but estimated that between 60-70 people attended out of 237 invited. Mr. Mueller
<br />192
<br />indicated that there was lots of curiosity, and realized that no one likes change; but opined
<br />193
<br />that, based on his personal experience, the City of Roseville had changed from its original
<br />194
<br />country atmosphere to a more urban environment; and that, while he appreciated the
<br />195
<br />concern of people, he didn’t think the difference in rooflines was that substantial.
<br />196
<br />Chair Bakeman reiterated her question regarding any changes to the proposal made by
<br />197
<br />Mr. Mueller as a result of the Open House; with Mr. Mueller responding that there had
<br />198
<br />really been no additional changes made.
<br />199
<br />Mr. Johnson responded that the number of units had been reduced by one, from 78 to 77,
<br />200
<br />to reduce the impacts of the roofline.
<br />201
<br />Mr. Mueller addressed the need for this type of housing option; referenced Presbyterian
<br />202
<br />Homes and their various types of senior living options, along with their substantial waiting
<br />203
<br />lists; average home prices for Presbyterian Homes options; annual household expenses;
<br />204
<br />and his intent that seniors could live in this type of housing less expensively than other
<br />205
<br />options. Mr. Mueller addressed his intended down payment option, depending on square
<br />206
<br />footages, and some of the contractual proposals for these units; and proposed rents
<br />207
<br />ranging between $1,500 and $3,000, again depending on square footage, and down
<br />208
<br />payments yet to be determined, but anticipated between $150,000 and $200,000, with all
<br />209
<br />utilities and services included.
<br />210
<br />Chair Bakeman addressed written comment received to-date by Commissioners, including
<br />211
<br />the mass of the building, and the height for the limited size of the property it covers.
<br />212
<br />Mr. Mueller noted that the parcel covered almost 3.5 acres, with a portion across the road;
<br />213
<br />however, he noted that only 2.27 of that parcel would be buildable with the given proposal.
<br />214
<br />Chair Bakeman noted that the project, under the proposed zoning designation, was a
<br />215
<br />higher density than that proposed cap of 25 units per acre.
<br />216
<br />Mr. Johnson reviewed the overall gross acreage, as addressed by Mr. Mueller, and how
<br />217
<br />the applicant had based their density calculations, less right-of-way, when looking at the
<br />218
<br />entire building and entire gross acreage of 4.2 acres for the purpose of City calculations.
<br />219
<br />Discussion included the financial aspects for renters buying into the units, not paying
<br />220
<br />taxes and borrowing money through the corporation, while remaining a renter; other
<br />221
<br />examples of this type of property in Roseville; dissimilarities to Cooperative Housing; no
<br />222
<br />association management proposed for this type of housing option; and recourse for
<br />223
<br />renters/buyers for this type of business model.
<br />224
<br />Commissioner Gottfried questioned if the business model remained a viable venture if the
<br />225
<br />number of units were reduced, as an example by half, and whether the budget and scales
<br />226
<br />of economy would make the venture profitable and sustainable with such a reduction.
<br />227
<br />Commissioner Gottfried opined that the property, with this proposed project, seemed to be
<br />228
<br />overly and intensely used given the proposed scale, and was way too large for this
<br />229
<br />property.
<br />230
<br />Mr. Mueller advised that he was unsure of that.
<br />231
<br />Further discussion included how much of a reduction in units would still allow the project
<br />232
<br />to be viable, with the applicant unsure of an answer, including the number of employees
<br />233
<br />not changing for operation of the facility, and the need to charge more per unit, making
<br />234
<br />marketing less amenable.
<br />235
<br />Mr. Paschke reminded Commissioners and the applicant that this information may be
<br />236
<br />useful related to the project itself, whether the units were rentals or owned, or a mixture
<br />237
<br />thereof, was not germane to the land use discussion or requested action. Mr. Paschke
<br />238
<br />advised, related to mass concerns, it would be beneficial following public comment, for the
<br />239
<br />
<br />
|