2011-02-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 02, 2011 Page 5 the City in doing whatever was needed to get the Comprehensive Plan in line with the 204 existing neighborhoods. 205 Betty Saja 3201 Old Highway 8, St. Anthony Village , 206 Ms. Saja reviewed the history of her residency in this area and her current townhome; 207 and impacts to her property from the proposed big buildings in her backyard. Ms. Saja 208 expressed her disappointment that St. Anthony Village hadn’t gotten more involved. Ms. 209 Saja noted her property was unique in that her taxes were paid to Hennepin County, her 210 utilities were paid to Roseville, but she actually lived in St. Anthony Village; causing her to 211 feel she had no representation from anyone. Ms. Saja expressed her hope that the 212 Roseville City Council came to a solution for everyone’s sakes as neighbors. 213 Joseph Giannelli, 3209 Old Highway 8 214 Mr. Giannelli referenced the County line, opining that it was located between several of 215 the properties. 216 City Planner Paschke clarified that this was not accurate, and that the map being 217 displayed was exclusive to the City of Roseville, and did not show two (2) of the 218 townhomes that were actually located to the west in St. Anthony Village in Hennepin 219 County, on the border with Ramsey County. 220 Mr. Giannelli questioned the role of the Metropolitan Council in approving this land use 221 designation; at which Mr. Paschke clarified that the City of Roseville was responsible for 222 achieving its own Comprehensive Plan, while meeting certain standards and addressing 223 certain areas set out by the Metropolitan Council, called “systems.” 224 At the request of Mr. Giannelli, Mr. Paschke reviewed the history of Open Houses, 225 Community meetings, and Public Hearings held throughout the Comprehensive Plan 226 Update process allowing the public to provide their comment; and clarified that the 227 Planning Commission made recommendations to the City Council, who was the final 228 decision-makers. 229 Brian Buck 230 Mr. Buck asked that, if the Planning Commission conclusion was to uphold the appeal 231 and not initiate any further action at this time, they provide sufficient feedback and make 232 their positions clear to allow the adjacent neighbors with adequate information as to the 233 viability of pursuing further steps given the major expense in filing an application for 234 rezoning if there was no indication that it would be supported by a parallel 235 Comprehensive Plan Amendment action initiated by the Planning Commission or City 236 Council. 237 Chair Boerigter closed public comment on this issue at 7:20 p.m.; clarifying that 238 invitations had been sent to interested parties announcing tonight’s meeting and topic of 239 discussion; however, that this was not a formal public hearing. 240 Commissioner / Staff Discussion 241 Member Gottfried noted that this land use designation had originally been voted on by the 242 Commission on September 29, 2010. Member Gottfried reviewed the motion and 243 recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council; with the City Council 244 choosing not to concur with that recommendation. Member Gottfried suggested that the 245 neighbors not return to the City Council without having determined before then if they had 246 sufficient votes to support their request. Member Gottfried expressed his interest in the 247 City Council considering the Planning Commission’s previous recommendation. 248 On the issue currently before the Commission, Member Gottfried opined that there 249 appeared to be no other option than to support the administrative decision of the 250 Community Development Department; and advised that he would support a motion to 251 support that decision to deny the appeal. 252 Member Gottfried expressed his interest in the record showing his recommendation to 253 concerned citizens that they pursue a process that would prompt the City Council to take 254 action to bring the matter back before the Planning Commission, given the current 255