2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 19 wetlands in that area and ecological system. While it made sense to develop these lots 910 together, Member Murphy noted the reality that this involved two separate owners with 911 varying ideas, and was beyond the Commission’s current purview anyway. 912 In terms of what would best fit in this neighborhood, Member Murphy stated he would 913 support MDR designation. 914 Concluding Discussion 915 Member Daire opined that as developers came forward, their land cost per unit would be 916 addressed in their profit and loss statements and criteria set by them; suggesting to Mr. 917 Runquist that the he pursue with the other property owner to seek one developer and/or 918 consultants to market and develop the properties together and split costs and profits. 919 In addressing Member Daire’s previous property value calculations, Member Bull noted 920 that if Roseville was a vibrant community as billed, it would seem that a property owner 921 should see some appreciation on that value over time. Otherwise, Member Bull 922 questioned the incentive in bringing people into Roseville. 923 Member Daire stated that was his rationale in suggesting to Mr. Runquist self- 924 development of the properties to improve their return on investment and putting them in 925 the driver’s seat allowing them to develop the properties in such a way to preserve 926 wetland areas and facilitate drainage while accommodating a certain number of units. 927 Member Bull noted that went to his previous statement that neither property owner was 928 requesting this change, and if they wanted to they could self-develop it or request a PUD 929 to do so. 930 Member Daire noted that the Commission didn’t need to make that decision, but only 931 needed to be focused on what the appropriate land use was for development in that area. 932 Recognizing that other Commissions or City Councils may have chosen a different 933 direction over eighteen years ago, no one anticipated the decline in property values that 934 occurred during the 2008 recession. 935 MOTION 936 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to the 937 City Council approval of the proposed COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND 938 OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CHANGES from High Density Residential and HDR-1 to 939 Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential District; based on the 940 information, analysis and condition contained in the project report dated October 941 7, 2015. 942 Ayes: 6 943 Nays: 1 (Bull) 944 Motion carried. 945 6. Discussion Item 946 Review the contemplated acquisition of property containing the ballfields at County Road 947 C and Victoria Street; and the contemplated disposal of the High Density Residential 948 (HDR) lot at 2668 Lexington Avenue by the City of Roseville 949 Prior to considering this item, Member Murphy noted his previous concern related to recusing 950 himself from discussions on any United Properties’ land use issues based on his involvement on 951 the board at Applewood Point at Langton Lake, another property developed by United Properties, 952 and any perceived conflict of interest. However, since then, Member Murphy advised that, 953 following consultation with the City Attorney for an informal ethics opinion, he had been advised 954 that since this discussion item was not directly from United Properties but consideration of their 955 comprehensive plan put forward, without any individual gain for Member Murphy, the City 956 Attorney agreed that there was no conflict. Member Murphy advised that the City Attorney 957 suggested, if there was any concern with the remainder of the Planning Commission in Member 958 Murphy’s participation as a Senior Cooperative Director occasional doing business with United 959