My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_060309
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
pm_060309
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2010 10:44:27 AM
Creation date
3/1/2010 10:44:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/3/2009
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.
/
15
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
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 03, 2009 <br />Page 12 <br />Commissioner Best thanked staff for providing additional information in the staff report <br />and its assistance in addressing this difficult proposal, specifically the comparables and <br />relative impact to adjoining properties. Commissioner Best opined that those items that <br />the Commission had been asked by the City Council to look at, as detailed in Section 7.8 <br />of the staff report, had been addressed; that sufficient revisions had been made by the <br />developer/applicant; and that this project seemed comparable to previous projects as <br />noted. Commissioner Best questioned why this project should be considered differently <br />from those other projects; opined that staff had provided due diligence in their review; <br />and while he was initially opposed to the project, it appreciated the way it had been <br />revised to address various concerns; and spoke in support of the project as presented. <br />City Planner Paschke reminded Commissioners that they were being asked to consider a <br />General Concept plan to be forwarded as recommended to shape the project; and that <br />the finer details of the Plan would develop as the project proceeded, with further <br />modifications to address certain impacts. Mr. Paschke asked that the Commission <br />articulate for specific comments to further shape the project. <br />Commissioner Wozniak asked what role the City had in assuring that the project is built <br />as portrayed. <br />Mr. Paschke noted that this project, based on current City Code and the PUD process <br />itself, provided a much higher scrutiny than during development of Ferriswood and/or <br />Midland Grove Condominiums. Mr. Paschke advised that final plan design documents, as <br />a PUD Agreement, are part of a contractual obligation between the development and <br />City, and would remain as presented unless further PUD Amendments were sought. <br />Vice Chair Boerigter noted that during the construction process, the location of the <br />building and field conditions would be monitored by Building Officials in accordance with <br />current City Code. <br />Mr. Paschke concurred; and further noted that neither Ferriswood nor Midland Grove had <br />to proceed through the stringent stormwater management process that this project would <br />endure; with this project required to achieve a higher standard and responsibility for <br />drainage produced on its site, and flow from Mr. Enzler’s property, in providing a <br />stormwater management plan that would meet the City’s and Rice Creek Watershed <br />District requirements. <br />Commissioner Doherty noted that he had not been a big supporter of this project in the <br />past; but complimented staff and the developer for making the significant revisions from <br />what the Commission had reviewed at previous meetings. Commissioner Doherty noted <br />that the scale had been too large, and that the developer had scaled back the project; <br />and had been responsive to concerns previously expressed by the Commission, the City <br />Council, and the public. Commissioner Doherty echoed Commissioner Best’s comments, <br />and spoke in support of the revised proposal. <br />Commissioner Gottfried spoke specifically about his ongoing concerns with the project: <br />that it was too large and that the height shouldn’t be more than two (2) or three (3) stories <br />total; and retain a forty foot (40’) setback. Commissioner Gottfried noted the need to <br />address the economic viability of the site and developer’s rationale for fifty-five (55) units; <br />however, he opined that the project would have to be reduced to fewer than forty (40) <br />units at a maximum to get the project scope down to an appropriate size for this site. <br />Commissioner Gottfried gave credit to the developer and staff for revisions to-date; <br />however, opined that another floor needed to come off, to reduce the height; and that he <br />would only be comfortable with the low range of the high density designation. <br />Commissioner Wozniak noted that he didn’t support the project when previously <br />presented, and that he would not support it today. Commissioner Wozniak opined that he <br />remained impressed with the changes made to-date by the design team; however, that <br />the building was still too big; and expressed concern about traffic circulation on County <br />Road B and Highway 280, and that any increased traffic on County Road B at this <br />intersection raised safety concerns for him. Commissioner Wozniak expressed <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.