Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 <br />Page 25 <br />of those discussions, Chair Boguszewski suggested either reviewing a portion tonight, or <br />1224 <br />given the lateness of the hour, to continue it to a future meeting. <br />1225 <br />Member Murphy concurred, but suggested hearing from those members of the public in <br />1226 <br />attendance tonight and asked staff if there was any negative impacts if the Commission <br />1227 <br />didn’t finalize their discussion and action tonight. <br />1228 <br />Chair Boguszewski duly noted his intent to hear public comment from those in <br />1229 <br />attendance tonight. <br />1230 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that from a staff perspective there was no formal 60-day rule to comply <br />1231 <br />with as this was an internal application, and only impacted developers tracking its <br />1232 <br />progress who may be anticipating its completion in September, his only concern. <br />1233 <br />At the request of Member Cunningham, Chair Boguszewski advised thatpublic comment <br />1234 <br />would be heard on any portion of this requested action, but asking speakers to clearly <br />1235 <br />identify which requested action they were specifically addressing to avoid confusion. <br />1236 <br />Public Comment <br />1237 <br />Lisa McCormick, <br />1238 <br />Ms. McCormick advised that shewould be addressingbothissues, expressing concern <br />1239 <br />withthelimited time of5 minutes per speaker. <br />1240 <br />Ms. McCormick spoke to the longprocess of over ayear for this item to come forward; <br />1241 <br />and referenced materials she had brought to the CityCouncilin June and <br />1242 <br />Councilmember Laliberte’srequest at that time that those materials alsobe forwarded to <br />1243 <br />thePlanning Commission for incorporation,noting that shewouldbe further referencing <br />1244 <br />some of those exhibits inher comments tonight. <br />1245 <br />Ms. McCormick specificallyaddressed some of the neighborhood concernsin this area <br />1246 <br />serving asagateway to 700 Roseville homes focused around the intersectionof Fairview <br />1247 <br />Avenue and Terrace Drive;and thatneighborhood’s submittal of3 petitions to-date to the <br />1248 <br />Planning Commission and/or City Council,1 specificallyrelated to conditions for Interim <br />1249 <br />Use (IU) approval for Vogel Sheetmetal, and1 specificallyaddressing resident concerns <br />1250 <br />in the currentlyzoned HRD area, seeking rezoning to Medium DensityResidential <br />1251 <br />(MDR), but now proposedby the City Council directing staff towardCMU-1, which <br />1252 <br />ultimatelywas more amenableto residents of adjacentproperties and for theparks, <br />1253 <br />rd <br />whichwas their initial intention.Ms. McCormickstatedthat the3petitionwas put <br />1254 <br />forward featuring specifics the neighbors feltwould be morefavorablein the TwinLakes <br />1255 <br />Redevelopment Area,including speakingto height, big box retailuses;with the City <br />1256 <br />Councilinstitutinga planning process in January of 2015.Ms.McCormick stated that at <br />1257 <br />that time, residentswere told that the processwould be multi-step, including a <br />1258 <br />neighborhood survey,a reviewof visual preferences related to height issues,and then <br />1259 <br />resultingina more fine-tuned product.However, Ms. McCormickopinedthat the process <br />1260 <br />was later haltedwithonlyone step–the neighborhood survey–having been <br />1261 <br />accomplished.Ms.McCormick noted thatitwas interesting to her tonote that the <br />1262 <br />petitions contained signatures of approximately 80 neighbors,while approximately66 <br />1263 <br />surveyswere received. <br />1264 <br />When thiswaslast discussed by the City Council in June of 2015,Ms. McCormick <br />1265 <br />advisedthat she hadasked theMayor if theyweredisregardingthe petitions andinstead <br />1266 <br />leaning toward rezoning toCMU, andwas told thatappeared tobe the mood of the City <br />1267 <br />Council at that time and after having talked toother residents. <br />1268 <br />Ms. McCormick clarified that shewas speaking on her own behalf tonight asa resident. <br />1269 <br />Ms. McCormick stated thatthe neighbors werewilling to be reasonablewitha lighter <br />1270 <br />intensity CMUwhich seemed to make sense, but theinclusion ofa significant number of <br />1271 <br />P uses remained an issue for them as theyhad advised the City Council,andasked that <br />1272 <br />the Commission scale those uses back further or signify them as CU asaway to further <br />1273 <br />define them. <br />1274 <br /> <br />