2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 21 Mr. Weyer expressed his understanding for some of the concerns expressed by some 1030 neighbors who would prefer he do nothing with his remaining property, but also noted he 1031 had the right to develop his property, putting him at the mercy of the Commission’s and 1032 City Council’s determination. Mr. Weyer stated that he couldn’t stress enough to the 1033 Commission how hard it had been to sit in the audience and listen to the negative 1034 neighborhood comments and their attempt to try to vote a development down yet again. 1035 Mr. Weyer opined that he deserved the opportunity to develop his property, and further 1036 opined that this development would not prove a high impact on people. Mr. Weyer asked 1037 that the Commission take all things into consideration in their deliberation and ultimate 1038 recommendation, offered his willingness to answer any of their questions, and invited 1039 them to walk through the property and see the markings where the development 1040 components will be to help everyone understand the proposal. Mr. Weyer opined that 1041 this type of facility is needed, based on his personal family experience.If individual 1042 commissioners had any serious concerns, Mr. Weyer asked that they not vote “no” 1043 without talking things out first, especially given the number of years he’d been attempting 1044 to develop this site and other options proven not viable. Mr. Weyerasked for the 1045 Commission’s honest consideration, and that they not be swayed by emotions or politics, 1046 but be open to work through any concerns to find some common ground to allow him the 1047 ability to make things work for his family, opining that wasn’t too much to ask. 1048 Liz Eisler, 2230 Midland Grove Road 1049 Ms. Eisler expressed her concerns about traffic, whether the units would be single or 1050 double-occupancy affecting traffic from visitors and family; whether additional amenities 1051 would be available on-site (e.g. dental office, barber shop) or residents would need to be 1052 transported for those amenities; whether food and/or medicine deliveries would be 1053 weekly or more frequently; traffic from physical therapists and others caring for residents 1054 beyond on-site staff;and additional traffic from busses to transport residents for outings; 1055 and traffic from random visitors to the facility to lead social activities. 1056 As a younger property owner at Midland Grove Condominiums, Ms. Eisler noted that she 1057 was one of the ownerswho could leave as Mr. Ashton spoke to “community flight,” but 1058 she stated she didn’t want to leave and appreciated her community and noted it would be 1059 hard to leave it. However, Ms. Eisler opined that the economic value of her property 1060 would likely decrease if this development proceeds; and further opined that young 1061 families would be needed to replace those older members of the community being lost. 1062 Ms. Eisler advised that Midland Grovewas updating their building to encourage younger 1063 families, but questioned if their location would be as enticing for them with an assisted 1064 living facility located in the immediate neighborhood. 1065 Ms. Eisler addressed the hill off Ferris Lane onto Midland Grove Road that created some 1066 confusion for vehicles thinking they were accessing Highway 36, but creating a huge 1067 traffic issue for those making that mistake, going the wrong way and having to loop and 1068 turn around. Ms. Eisler noted there were considerable issues already with traffic, and 1069 they would only increase with additional visitors and deliveries created with this project. If 1070 Ramsey County has an access point in place, but wasn’t willing to bring additional traffic 1071 onto it, Ms. Eisler asked what made the option 20’ from there a better option, especially 1072 with this road soclose to the freeway ramp, and already experiencing considerable traffic 1073 issues. 1074 Jim Eisler, 2230 Midland Grove Road 1075 Using his experience in real estate, Mr. Eisler opined that this was a volunteer sport for 1076 the property owner, and reviewed the ownership and valuation history of the property, 1077 with the current owner acquiring the property in 2001. Mr. Eisler addressed Mr. Weyer’s 1078 point that he also believed in property rights, but also believed in zoning and using a 1079 property as it was intended. 1080 Mr. Eisler admitted this was a very difficult property to develop, as evidenced by the 1081 number of times it had come forward to this body with development proposals for the 1082 small site. Mr. Eisler referenced some of the Planning Commission’s findings in 2009 1083