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 8 <br />Mr. LeBarron, a resident at 2101 W County Road B in Roseville, as President and Chief <br />Planner for Station 19 Architects; provided a detailed synopsis of the Orchard <br />owner/developer and design teams and their respective expertise. <br />Mr. LeBarron reviewed previous projects completed by some or all of the members of the <br />owner/developer team; addressed the age and maintenance conditions of Midland Grove <br />and Ferriswood; clarified zoning and land use misprints; and make up of the subject <br />property. Mr. LeBarron reviewed the original 77-unit building and minimal setbacks <br />compared to the current, revised 55-unit building, at 71% of the original with increased <br />setbacks. Mr. LeBarron defined building elevations and details; computer-generated sight <br />lines; and detailed site and design revisions in response to previous public comment, and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Council, and assisted by City <br />staff. Mr. LeBarron advised that the applicant was open to further revisions, based on <br />factual and constructive criticisms as the project developed, and in keeping with the <br />project’s design quality concepts and goals. <br />Chair Doherty complimented the applicant on their improved façade articulation to break <br />up the building mass. <br />Commissioner Wozniak opined that the project had come a long way since initial <br />presentation; and expressed his surprise at how residential it looked compared to those <br />original sketches; however, he opined that it was still a big building. <br />Mr. LeBarron advised that the smallest project he’d ever developed had been at fifty (50) <br />units, and that 50 units was the bottom of the economic feasibility break, noting that this <br />was at the small end of multiple housing spectrums. <br />Commissioner Gottfried sought clarification of the threshold allowing the project to remain <br />economically feasible. <br />Mr. LeBarron advised that the original proposal with 77 units had provided a better safety <br />margin, and that this was now at 10%, providing for a small cushion from economic risk. <br />Public Comment <br />Mr. Paschke requested that the Planning Commission focus public comment specifically <br />on the request before them, as per City Council directive. <br />Vice Chair Boerigter asked the public to keep their comments focused on the General <br />Concept Plan as opposed to issues for rezoning or Comprehensive Plan Amendment, <br />noting that this specific request would be going before the City Council in the near future; <br />and advising that any other discussion would be considered out of order. <br />Peter Coyle, land use attorney from Larkin, Hoffman, et al, 7800 Xerxes, <br />Bloomington, MN (Ferriswood Development and Midland Grove Condominiums) <br />Mr. Coyle cautioned that, if the City approved the Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning as <br />previously recommended by the Planning Commission on a divided vote, they would be <br />giving up their ability to control development on the property. Mr. Coyle opined that the <br />building, as revised, remained too tall, too big, and too much mass for the site, as had <br />been borne out in discussion of this site, referencing similar concerns voiced by the City <br />Council in their discussions of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and their concerns <br />with the high density of the proposal. Mr. Coyle opined that the PUD exceeded zoning <br />outside the project, and that it remained clear from City Council discussions, that they <br />were uncomfortable with the size of the building, and that the building was essentially the <br />same, with the wings altered for the site and simply shifted around on the property. <br />Mr. Coyle restated previously-raised objections; and noted remaining concerns of several <br />Planning Commissioners related to the size and mass of the building and its close <br />proximity to Ferriswood with the large east wall expanse. Mr. Coyle requested additional <br />design changes that would be compatible with medium density use. <br />Gary Stenson, 2179 Ferris Lane <br />Mr. Stenson requested that staff display various Attachments provided by staff for <br />comparison purposes; and proceeded to provide his interpretation of those comparables <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.