2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 14 and west of the townhomes immediately to the west of these two subject properties. Mr. 649 Buck noted that there were also numerous schools in that same vicinity as well as 650 Sandcastle Park, resulting in high pedestrian, bicycle and school bus traffic, each in turn 651 creating challenges at and near this 5-way intersection including right-of-way issues. Mr. 652 Buck admitted he feared for the safety of his two sons at this intersection. 653 Mr. Buck noted that this property had been considered one of the City of Roseville’s 654 “anomaly properties” during the rezoning and comprehensive plan update process, and 655 had been guided HDR with current single-family land use now. Mr. Buck admitted that at 656 that time, neither he nor most of the neighbors didn’t understand the ramifications of that 657 HDR designation, but noted it was necessary for a majority of citizen voices to be heard 658 when considering future land use applications to ensure a potential developer met city 659 code. As the community grasped the ramifications of that designation, admittedly late in 660 that process, Mr. Buck advised that they raised their concerns, but the neighborhood had 661 come too late to the party in voicing those concerns. 662 Mr. Buck stated that he was passionate about safety concerns based on past property 663 uses, but also given today’s changing demographics in that area of mostly single-family 664 residential parcels along Old Highway 8 and up to County Road D. Mr. Buck advised that 665 those concerns were included in the packet materials and involved, traffic, safety and the 666 overall fit between HDR and MDR, building height, units per acre, and maximum 667 improvement area – all relevant in addressing his concerns. 668 Mr. Buck opined that he had found the 2010 rezoning and comprehensive plan process 669 extremely disappointing, referencing the City Council meeting minutes from October 25, 670 2010 when they chose not to take action from MDR even with recommendation from the 671 Planning Commission. While it had been a mixed dialogue, Mr. Buck opined that the 672 majority of the citizens didn’t understand the process, with only one strong advocate for 673 Low Density Residential (LDR) designation that was not supported and concerns about 674 public safety, traffic and other suggestions for a comprehensive traffic study requested 675 from neighbors not done then nor to-date from his knowledge even with neighbors 676 repeatedly making that request over the last few years. 677 Mr. Buck further opined that the potential for development of these two parcels as HDR 678 was felt by neighbors to be a negative impact in attempting maximum density, and stated 679 that lower density would mitigate many of those concerns. Mr. Buck expressed his hope 680 that it was clear from written and verbal comment to-date that this was not only a dispute 681 between adjacent property owners, but involved the broader neighborhood in attempting 682 to evaluate how they could get a voice in this matter. Mr. Buck advised that neighbors 683 considered it from an environmental assessment standpoint, thus the petition signatures 684 that had not been completed due to the previous development proposal stalling for other 685 reasons, but not negating the neighborhood’s desire to revisit it. 686 Mr. Buck stated his sympathy for property owners seeking to maximize land value, but 687 noted that the city had the ability to influence the outcome of those two parcels and 688 where it was appropriate for HDR zoning versus the basis of investment made on the 689 parcels over the last two decades or more, including values and tax rates for single-family 690 residential uses versus HDR. 691 Mr. Buck concluded by highly encouraging the Commission to support MDR as a solution 692 for the neighborhood to mitigate these community concerns, address neighborhood 693 problems, and balance the desires of the property owner to developer these parcels. Mr. 694 Buck opined there remained an additional need for the City to pursue efforts to 695 encourage civic engagement and respond to public safety concerns. 696 Rita Mix, 3207 Old Highway 8 697 Ms. Mix displayed a map of the Woods Edge Townhomes, and clarified her property as 698 th the 4 unit in from the west side and located in Roseville and in Ramsey County. 699 Ms. Mix provided her historical perspective on development of this area and 700 encroachment issues on adjacent property that she had been initially unaware of until 701