2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 24 Member Daire further noted making sure children were not abducted from corners and 1189 making sure parents were not parking in “No Parking” areas was a discussion for the 1190 School Board and its transportation people, and suggested opening the parking lot to 1191 Midland Grove for routing that student and parent traffic there may be a solution. 1192 Chair Boguszewski suggested that would be an issue for the city’s traffic enforcement 1193 department, not the Planning Commission. 1194 At this point, Member Daire stated he would lean toward voting “no” and asking staff to 1195 take a recommendation to the City Council to seek a study for MDR designation instead 1196 of HDR for this parcel. 1197 Member Stellmach stated that the majority of his thoughts had been expressed already 1198 by his colleagues, and while liking the project itself, agreed that the focus for tonight’s 1199 decision needed to be on the comprehensive plan and zoning designation. Member 1200 Stellmach questioned if a traffic study would really address all of his concerns, and 1201 having driven through theneighborhood earlier today and seeing the parking problems 1202 already evidenced, opined it may be that any added traffic might acerbate the problem, 1203 even though he was unsure of its solution. As far as whether or not to approve the 1204 requested re-designation to HDR, Member Stellmach admitted he was still undecided at 1205 this point. 1206 Member Murphy stated he was prepared to make a motion; and noted that his first 1207 Roseville address as a resident was 2240 Midland Grove Road, Apt. #302 back when 1208 they were still apartments; and therefore he was well aware of the dampness issues with 1209 the garages and tunnel going back many years. 1210 MOTION 1211 Member Murphy moved to delay consideration of the requested comprehensive plan land 1212 use map changes to re-designate the property at 2025 County Road B from LDR to HDR; 1213 and recommend to the City Council that the developer provide a traffic study of the 1214 immediate area. 1215 Mr. Paschke sought clarification of the proposed motion, noting that if the 1216 recommendation is to table this request pending traffic study, it would not go to the City 1217 Council, but ordered and paid for by the developer. Mr. Paschke advised that the 1218 process would be that action stopped at this point, and staff asked the developerto 1219 obtain a traffic study. Mr. Paschke further clarified that the study wouldn’t study existing 1220 traffic, but only that projected by modeling a permitted MDR or HDR use based on 1221 generalized standards, not the project itself, but based on maximum densities allowed 1222 under either designation. Mr. Paschke noted that the traffic study would address 1223 maximum densities allowed, and consider chances to develop parcels to the maximum 1224 beyond the proposal currently before the Commission. While it as unlikely that the parcel 1225 would ever develop to the maximum, Mr. Paschke noted that the study’s scope would 1226 depend on the direction provided by the Commission and suggested the scope for the 1227 developer include a review of other intersections in the immediate vicinity and identify 1228 certain other related things. 1229 Chair Boguszewski asked if the motion received a second, could it look at current traffic 1230 as well and future traffic on a hypothetical basis, since it wasn’t justified that the site 1231 remain undeveloped forever, but could include incremental changes over and above 1232 existingtraffic. Chair Boguszewski noted that one testifier spoke about the high levels of 1233 current traffic, and suggested different scenarios may prove beneficial versus the current 1234 vacant status. 1235 Mr. Paschke clarified that the traffic study models would identify a base line for existing 1236 traffic on County Road B, the access road, Cleveland Avenue and other intersections in 1237 the area occurring now; and then elaborate on the IST model projections based on this 1238 proposed development. 1239