2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 15 Member Murphy concurred, stating it would simply be a business decision on the part of 718 the developer, and not part of Planning Commission deliberations tonight. 719 Mr. Wright noted concerns with children as previously stated, and noted that the road 720 was signed “No Parking,” but that was not observed by parents with school children, and 721 suggested the School District needed to be involved. 722 Since Midland Grove was now an FHA-qualified building representing less than 37% of 723 its units, Mr. Wright noted that many of those owners had rented out their units and were 724 not involved in day-to-day happenings, but opined the school issue needed to be dealt 725 with. Mr. Wright opined that small children should not be walking across the rod, and 726 suggested they could be picked-up/dropped-off in the Midland Grove parking lot. 727 In general, Mr. Wright stated he and his wife were supportive of the proposal. 728 As a School District 623 Board member-elect, Chair Boguszewski encouraged residents 729 to go to the District’s website and send their concerns to board members, assuring those 730 residents that he had noted their concern for his follow-up when his term starts. 731 Patricia Keely Hall, 2209 Midland Grove Road, #301 732 Ms. Hall thanked the Planning Commission staff for their response to her questions prior 733 to this meeting. Ms. Hall stated that her original intent was to make a request, but with 734 the comments of Mr. Carrington about opposition of the neighborhood to this 735 development, Ms. Hall advised she needed to respond to that comment. While not 736 having a vested interest in this development, as a demographer by trade, Ms. Hall 737 clarified the results of the survey, noting that of 174 units, only 77 units responded –less 738 than half of those living at Midland Grove; andof those 77 units, approximately 27 739 residents, or 35% response rate, Ms. Hall noted that 9 supported the development, while 740 most responding left if blank or had no opinion. Ms. Hall opined that those opposed were 741 basically committed to keeping the property as is and how they would like to see it. 742 However, Ms. Hall further opined that those in opposition certainly didn’t represent 90% 743 of the residents living at Midland Grove. 744 Ms. Hall stated that 38% of those responding appeared worried about increased traffic, 745 and she suggested if a traffic study was performed it could reassure neighbors or give 746 them fuel to deal with their prospective new neighbors, Ramsey County and/or the City of 747 Roseville to get those potential problems alleviated. Ms. Hall stated she would be very 748 much in favor of a traffic study being performed. 749 As an employee of the U of MN in Dinkytown (Prospect Park), Ms. Hall noted that that 750 neighborhood changed and looked nothing like it used to, with high rise apartment 751 buildings installed and while not affiliated with the U of MN, some of those buildings were 752 constructed under false pretenses, such as proposing a certain density of a project, but 753 then the project switching to a greater density and height than that approved. 754 Member Daire noted that as a Planner with the City of Minneapolis at that time, he had 755 been involved in that development project. 756 Ms. Hall opined that, even if this proposal didn’t succeed, something would inevitably be 757 built there. Ms. Hall stated that she wanted to be agood citizen and positive part of the 758 community, but she also didn’t want whatever developed to be ugly or end up large 759 condominiums that would reduce area property values. If this proposal and this 760 application to change the comprehensive plan and zoningdon’t succeed, Ms Hall asked if 761 the Planning Commission would be willing to ask to rezone the property or move it away 762 from HDR designation; or asked if there was a way citizens could ask for the property to 763 be rezoned back to a lower density and use designation. 764 Mr. Paschke responded that there were a number of ways that could be addressed if the 765 developer walks away from the project and the sale doesn’t go through and the project is 766 dead. From that perspective, Mr. Paschke stated that the cityhad the ability to change 767 comprehensive plan guidance and zoning. However, Mr. Paschke noted that the end 768 result may be that, once guided and zoned differently, any permitted use supported by 769