2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 27 MAP CHANGES, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the 1335 recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated March 5, 2014 . 1336 Commissioner Position Statements 1337 Member Boguszewski noted that his concern is again the protection of existing properties 1338 and the tone and property values from the potential development of urban, pocket 1339 developments in Roseville. While there is no magic to the numbers just adopted, Member 1340 Boguszewski opined that they addressed his concerns and helped the process to some 1341 extent; and supported this project and moving toward MDR, seeing that as a good thing 1342 for this neighborhood. Even though he too felt the pressure, Member Boguszewski noted 1343 that the Planning Commission role and mission was much different than that of the HRA, 1344 and at this point, he could support this project, minus that pressure, for developing 1345 something here in this part of the community from its current land use and 1346 comprehensive plan guidance. 1347 Member Stellmach advised that his preference would have been to leave the Table as 1348 recommended by staff based on their expertise; however, since it was a small change, he 1349 opined that it probably would be fine. Regarding this particular action, Member Stellmach 1350 opined that it made sense to take this property from LDR, HDR and I zoning designations 1351 and switch to MDR when adjacent to an existing neighborhood, and therefore, he would 1352 support the motion. 1353 Member Murphy advised that his intent when he requested the re-arrangement of 1354 tonight’s agenda to reduce the pressure on the Commission. On the previous motion, and 1355 background of the request, Member Murphy noted that when things changed in 2010, 1356 some of those revisions were untested or unproven amendments that had been 1357 discussed and needed; with this providing the first opportunity to test them by taking the 1358 advantage of more time passing to adjust things and now move forward. Member Murphy 1359 opined that this goal had been accomplished and this body had done the best that they 1360 could as a group of citizens working within an untested area, and provided their best shot 1361 with that text. Member Murphy opined that he was comfortable supporting the changes to 1362 improve this development in this neighborhood. 1363 Member Cunningham seconded the comments of Member Stellmach; and spoke in 1364 support of this motion. 1365 Member Daire, on page 3, and the Planning Commission recommendation, note that this 1366 vote required a Super Majority Vote, and with one member absent from tonight’s meeting, 1367 it brought it down to the wire. Member Daire spoke in support of this motion, opining that 1368 he felt it was an appropriate change to consolidate the housing density for this 1369 neighborhood. 1370 Chair Gisselquist, in noting the first page of the staff report showing the pyramid of 1371 choices, he opined that this is legislative and that this body did more than bang gavels 1372 and facilitate public hearings to get things done and moving up to the City Council. 1373 However, Chair Gisselquist opined that it was difficult, and since he was not a 1374 professional planner, surveyor or engineer, he thought the previous action was simply 1375 pulling numbers out of a hat, even though the desire was to provide more of a buffer and 1376 reduce impacts of this urban development on existing neighbors. Based on the facts 1377 available, Chair Gisselquist opined that the body had done a good job; however, without 1378 having more time to consider the numbers, the rationale for them, and their potential 1379 impacts, he would be voting “nay” on this motion. 1380 Ayes: 5 1381 Nays: 1 (Gisselquist) 1382 Motion carried. 1383 City Council action on this item is scheduled for Monday, March 24, 2014. 1384