2016-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 16 city code could be developed, false pretenses or not, it would become a difficult 770 challenge with any proposal coming forward with no site plan approval or other approvals 771 requiring public vetting beyond administrative review and approval. Under that scenario, 772 Mr. Paschke noted that the designation would just be guiding the property for a certain 773 density and rezoning for a density and design standards under code requirements, and 774 not for a specific development. Realistically even under this proposal, and as much as 775 the preference may be and support given for an assisted living facility, Mr. Paschke noted 776 as staff there was no guarantee at this time that use would go forward. 777 Steve Enzler, 1995 W County Road B 778 As the next door neighbor to this property on the east, Mr. Enzler referenced his written 779 comments to the Commission 780 Mr. Enzler provided an historic perspective on the property and previous subdivisions, 781 and the net results for his adjacent single-family home. Mr. Enzler opined that one of the 782 lessons learned from that past action was that comprehensive plan designation should 783 not be done separately from zoning designations; and thanked the City Council for 784 resolving that discrepancy in 2008. However, an unfortunate result of that last effort was 785 his property would always have to remain a single-family residence, if for no other reason 786 that the topography of his property made anything else difficult. 787 Specific to economic viability based on the intent of the comprehensive plan designation, 788 Mr. Enzler stated that a buffer was important to his property and quality of life; and asked 789 that as the Commission thought about buffers especially with this particular proposal’s 790 orientation toward single-family units such as his, they take that issue into their 791 consideration. Specific to value of this and adjacent properties, Mr. Enzler noted that 792 everyone can developer their property and he and the neighboring properties should be 793 able to fully monetize their property, there needed to be a balance of how adjacent 794 development impacted the economic worth of adjacent parcels. Mr. Enzler opined that 795 he thought the intent of this property owner and developers were clear; and admitted that 796 no one can determine impacts to property values until fully developed. However, Mr. 797 Enzler noted his concerns with property values based on this development located closer 798 to adjacent properties and providing less of a buffer, which created the most impact to 799 properties and could result in those adjacent properties losing money from their pockets. 800 Mr. Enzler asked that the Commission consider whether or not this is the right land use at 801 this site for the City of Roseville in the long-term (e.g. twenty years from now), and further 802 noted that no matter what project is approved today, the use could convert to whatever 803 made the most money in the future if assisted living was no longer viable for this facility. 804 Mr. Enzler admitted that he didn’t envy the Commission’s decision tonight. Mr. Enzler 805 noted that this property is unique, and essentially was a box with the neighborhood 806 having only one entry point due to topography, creating more of a challenge with more 807 bodies potentially using that one access point. Mr. Enzler stated that he respected the 808 Planning Commission and them volunteering their time in this often contentious decision- 809 making role. However, Mr. Enzler begged the Commission to help the neighborhood 810 come to a conclusion that is right for this area, including some green space, and once 811 and for all address this issue for the neighbors and property owner before another nine 812 years went by. 813 Jim Wright, 2210 Midland Grove Road 814 Mr. Wright noted that he and his wife would be viewing the property directly from their 815 home. Mr. Wright noted that with this type of use it would not be uncommon for hearses 816 to be accessing this property on a frequent basis, and suggested if that bothered any of 817 the neighbors, not was the time to say so. 818 Tom DeLong, 2220 Midland Road, #310 819 Mr. DeLong opined that the road is barely wide enough to support the Midland Grove 820 Condominiums, especially if a fire truck needed to access the property. If HDR 821 designation is approved, Mr. DeLong opined that there is no way small tractor trailers 822