2016-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 13 whether they were owned, rented or otherwise occupied, further clarifying that this 614 ownership was not something the City of Roseville could dictate, but could only make that 615 determination based on the number of units to the size of the acreage. 616 Mr. Ashton expressed his topographical concerns in removing more trees causing the 617 residents at Midland Grove to look from their units directly onto traffic; and opined there 618 was no way more sirens and lights wouldn’t be experienced than now. 619 From an economical standpoint, Mr. Ashton predicted a more pronounced and genuine 620 “community flight” threat if this facility is permitted for those older residents at Midland 621 Grove without resolution other than to see their property value reduced. While younger 622 people may have other options, Mr. Ashton stated that “90% of the residents don’t want 623 this;” and noted the nice surroundings that had made Midland Grove a grove and fairly 624 middle-class place to live, even though property values had recently reduced as their 625 property had been made more barren. 626 Specific to security concerns, while unable to prove statistically, Mr. Ashton questioned 627 the accuracy of projected additional vehicles in and out onto County Road B and Midland 628 Grove Road. As already spoken to by a previous speaker, Mr. Ashton noted children 629 now living in their condominiums were at significantly higher danger; and noted there was 630 no concept to determine who would be standing at those corners further endangering 631 children. Even though Midland Grove was a senior facility in the past, Mr. Ashton noted 632 there were now children involved crossing the streets, and any additional traffic would 633 make it difficult for them to cross to the school bus stop. 634 From an historical perspective, and while the developer shared pictures of other facilities 635 similar to this proposed facility, Mr. Ashton stated the immediate neighbors have no 636 concept of what happened in those communities, or any concept of the concerns and 637 resulting development in those communities. Mr. Ashton noted that Midland Grove 638 represented a more concentrated community and that while some of its residents could 639 not be present tonight due to transportation and other issues, he felt he represented at 640 least some of them; and questioned what residents in those other communities had said 641 when those facilities moved into their neighborhoods. 642 Mr. Ashton stated that he and some of his neighbors at Midland Grove had been 643 threatened by others who tell them the Planning Commission has all power, and 644 therefore noted his hesitation in coming before the body, having also been told he may as 645 well not attend since the commission had all the power. If that is the case, Mr. Ashton 646 questioned who put the commissioners in their seats, opining that was where the 647 commission’s powers lie. Mr. Ashton stated that all residents in Roseville we’re part of a 648 community, and stated if this facility comes in and his prediction of “community flight” 649 happens, what will become of Midland Grove. Mr. Ashton stated he knew: values will 650 decrease and if that happens directly north of this new facility, what would happen with it, 651 and who would want to put their relative in a place with extremely low value. 652 Mr. Ashton stated that the Midland Grove Association had worked hard at maintaining 653 their property and advised he was proud to live there, one of the reasons he’d stayed for 654 43 years, allowing him to travel for his career but have a home base residence that he 655 could trust. If this new facility, as proposed, occurs, Mr. Ashton stated he was not sure 656 he’d continue to maintain that trust, and in fact might be one involved in that “community 657 flight.” 658 In an effort to clarify for Mr. Ashton and other citizens concerned with the power of the 659 Planning Commission, Chair Boguszewski clarified the mechanics of proceedings and 660 land use decision-making process. Chair Boguszewski clarified that each commissioner 661 was a volunteer citizen applying to the City Council to serve on this commission, and 662 appointed by the City Council to serve a proscribed term. However, Chair Boguszewski 663 clarified that the role of the commission was to make recommendation to the City Council 664 and the authority ultimately rested with the City Council. If an individual commissioner 665 chose to base their decisions on things thoughtless, inconsiderate or irrational and 666