2016-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 12 Mr. Stenson noted that his home and property abuts the east side of this subject 560 property, and he had two issues. Related to the zoning change itself, Mr. Stenson stated 561 his gut reaction was “no,” preferring the existing forest he currently viewed from his back 562 yard. However, Mr. Stenson noted his understanding of real estate, since he worked in 563 that field, and recognized that change wasn’t always bad and this project would improve 564 the tax base of the City of Roseville. 565 Mr. Stenson opined that the developer seemed to have things together, but asked that 566 they reconsider their plans to shift the footprint toward Cleveland rather than his house, 567 even though he was aware the requested action before the commission was only related 568 to zoning. However, with the potential that a concerned developer could sell the city on 569 this project, a future project may actually turn out to be for a six-story condominium with 570 underground parking, and expressed his concern that the city may lose control of the 571 situation if approving this zoning request, especially with no further public vetting of the 572 final project specific to lighting and/or landscaping. Since his hot tub was located on that 573 side of his property, Mr. Stenson stated that was of concern to him, and asked the 574 commission to make those impacts to adjacent properties part of their decision-making. 575 Chair Boguszewski asked staff to address any development and how it related to city 576 standards for light and sound mitigation, and what was allowable with this permitted use if 577 the request for comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning was approved, and what 578 may trigger a variance or other situation the public would get the opportunity to weigh in 579 on. In general, Chair Boguszewski asked what regulations and safeguards were in place 580 and considered adequate to address neighborhood concerns. 581 Mr. Paschke addressed current zoning and comprehensive plan guidance at LDR, 582 allowing someone to come in and develop under those standards today without any 583 public comment whatsoever, and no control for the public to voice their concerns. Mr. 584 Paschke reminded the commission and public that this request was not seeking special 585 approval of the project, but staff’s analysis reviewed those things on a regular basis as 586 they related to city code and design standards, and administratively determined what 587 needed to be mitigated. For instance, when single-family residential properties (LDR) are 588 adjacent to MDR, there are fewer screening or setback requirements or control 589 mechanisms to control placement of buildings , but it was staff’s role to understand and 590 address those controls provided in city code no matter what development or 591 redevelopment was occurring. Once a land use designation was approved, Mr. Paschke 592 advised that the project had to meet those requirements, but clarified that something 593 coming in at a higher density than allowed under current designations (e.g. size and 594 height) could not happen under existing codes and design requirements and played a 595 huge role in how things are laid out on a site based on those requirements and specific to 596 each development and its zoning designation. Unless a development or project requires 597 a Variance or Conditional Use, Mr. Paschke noted most were handled administratively by 598 staff, with this proposed project no different than any other permitted use and the controls 599 and protections embedded in city code required to be followed. 600 P. Carrington Ashton, 2200 Midland Grove Road 601 Mr. Ashton stated that he had some concerns, having lived in this immediate area for 43 602 years and initially surrounded by trees until the owner of buildings to the east had 603 removed trees and gardens and built the condominiums, apartments and single-family 604 homes. Mr. Ashton questioned who owned the road and grove of trees, noting more 605 recent removal of Willow trees and later Russian Olive trees. Mr. Ashton addressed this 606 latest threat of removing more trees and only having a fence, with rezoning on the other 607 side of that fence. Mr. Ashton admitted he was confused with some of the issues being 608 discussed, but questioned if the proposed rezoning was the same as that of Midland 609 Grove Condominiums, to which Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively. 610 If zoned the same, Mr. Ashton questioned how a facility could move to a 54-bed home 611 adjacent to private owners at Midland Grove Condominiums. Mr. Paschke clarified that 612 the condominiums were guided HDR because that designation fit their number of units, 613