pm_060309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 03, 2009 Page 13 appreciation for staff’s table of comparisons, however, opined that he saw enough differences between this and others presented; and was not convinced that this project fit favorably in that table. Commissioner Wozniak opined that there were too many units per acre, given the true acreage involved. Commissioner Wozniak further opined that Mr. Mueller had a development history in the community, and questioned if it was all favorable. Commissioner Wozniak expressed his preference that Mr. Mueller step up and take responsibility for past errors and attempt to make amends. Commissioner Gisselquist noted that this was his first time officially seeing this proposal as a Commissioner; however noted that he had been following past discussions as a resident living on the other side of the Fairview Community Center. Commissioner Gisselquist opined that it would be sad to see the green space removed; however, he sympathized with Mr. Mueller’s position and the need for directed development of the property. Commissioner Gisselquist advised that the comparison table provided by staff put things in perspective with those other projects; and while hating to see the green space go away, opined that it was not for him to dictate what others did with their private property; and that the developer had taken favorable steps to bring the density down; and that he would support the project. Commissioner Cook opined that he saw no major conflicts with traffic movements; that this type of senior housing was a need in the community; that it looked like a good project as revised; and that he would support the project. Vice Chair Boerigter recognized the comments and objections made by those making public comments; however, he noted his decision-making perspective in considering the greater Roseville Community. Vice Chair Boerigter opined that, from this perspective, this was a worthy project, and he spoke in support of it, if the developers deemed that they could make the project work financially. Vice Chair Boerigter opined that the developer had made great strides in the building’s design elements and structure, with improved aesthetics; and further opined that, based on size and scope of the project, it was not out of line with other projects in Roseville. Vice Chair Boerigter recognized that the project had impacts on the Stenson and Enzler properties, but that there was a greater good for Roseville. In light of the mandate by the Metropolitan Council to provide higher density housing, Vice Chair Boerigter noted that, given the City’s limited opportunities to do so, the required units could only be achieved through smart and careful development. Vice Chair Boerigter opined that, when looking at the Midland Grove development, this project was not significantly out of line, nor did its height indicate a great impact on Midland Grove, only Mr. Stenson and Mr. Enzler, and questioned if the Commission or City Council should determine projects based on impacts to 1 or 2 properties. Vice Chair Boerigter concurred with Commissioner Cook that staff had performed careful analysis of traffic issues. Vice Chair Boerigter addressed the past development projects of Mr. Mueller, and opined that they were “red herrings” and not relevant to the issues at hand before this Commission. Vice Chair Boerigter opined that this Concept Plan was good and provided a positive influence on the area and Roseville society, whether or not it increased the City’s tax base; and clarified that the Commission was not looking at the project from that perspective; but personally opined that this project would not negatively impact the assessed values of surrounding properties. MOTION Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Doherty to RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT and the request of Art Mueller to redevelop 2025 County Road B with a 55-unit active senior living community; as prepared for the June 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, subject to the conditions of Section 8 of the staff report dated June 3, 2009; noting that final approval by the City Council will be considered after all conditions and required documents and permits have been submitted for final approval, and considered as a separate application process.