2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 28 subsequent conversations with a number of her neighbors, they had no idea the strip had 1380 even been rezoned HDR, nor how or when that was done.Ms. Erickson noted that 1381 initially the neighborhood preference was for MDR to avoid upsetting existing businesses 1382 while still protecting residents in the area and Oasis Park. 1383 As a 40 year resident of Roseville, Ms. Erickson stated that neither she nor her neighbors 1384 were trying to block progress, but simply seeking protection for their property and their 1385 ability to enjoy their quality of life without hurting anyone else. 1386 While the timeframe may be important, Ms. Erickson opined that its importance seemed 1387 important for some things, but not others.Ms. Erickson expressed her interest in being 1388 good neighbors, and hoped adjacent property owners would do so as well, even though 1389 she no longer had much trust in any protections the process may offer, since it hadn’t 1390 seemed to work for the residential neighborhoodover the last 1.5 years.Ms. Erickson 1391 asked for the Commission’s compassion, reiterating that their intent was not to stop 1392 development in Roseville, but to retain a walkable community and maintain the 1393 demographics of their neighborhood and the investmentsmade in those homes.Ms. 1394 Erickson concluded by asking that the Commission consider the protection of those 1395 residential properties as well as those of the business community. 1396 With no one appearing, Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 10:28p.m. 1397 Chair Boguszewski stated that from his perception, he shared conceptually those 1398 comments of Ms. McCormick regarding the uses in CMU-1, but not necessarily those she 1399 suggested in CMU-2 and CMU-3.If the intent is to have a more restrictive buffer zone in 1400 the broader CMU district, Chair Boguszewski stated that he understood the desire to 1401 have CMU-1 more restrictive than currently proposed.Further, Chair Boguszewski 1402 agreed with the perception that the neighborhood surveys may or may not have been 1403 taken into account during staff’s work on this; however, he noted that thisremained a 1404 draft proposition.Chair Boguszewski admitted that personally he did not feel prepared 1405 tonight to approve the Table of Uses in any array of P, NP or CU uses without the 1406 opportunity to perform a more detailed and thoughtful review. 1407 Having followed the pedigree of this process via webcast of City Council discussions to- 1408 date and the give and take of those discussions, Member Murphy opined that another set 1409 of eyes had already given it a general review. 1410 Mr. Lloyd advised that since the public input session referenced in January, the subareas 1411 within the CMU had been broken out by the City Council, and would most likely be of 1412 greater concern or interest to the community than the initial listof uses discussed by the 1413 City Council, having morphed into this summary presentation based on feedback to-date 1414 and further review.Subsequent to that process, Mr. Lloyd noted the staff addition of the 1415 remainder of the CMU district table filling in the blanks based on their knowledge and 1416 various input sources to-date, with some uses more conventional in nature and easier to 1417 address than some. 1418 Specific to gas station uses, Chair Boguszewski note dif it was CU across the board it 1419 seemed less problematic to him than having it as a P use in CMU-1 if that is intended as 1420 a buffer zone.With Vogel Mechanical an ongoing project, Chair Boguszewski questioned 1421 what if any ramifications there would be for them if the Commission didn’t’ take action on 1422 or complete this discussion tonight. 1423 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd noted the current IU for Vogel remained 1424 in place, and needn’t warrant the Commission moving more quickly than warranted or in 1425 a way they felt most comfortable with, given the ultimate goal ofmaking sure the resulting 1426 recommendations were done right. 1427 While not suggesting charging forward with the process, Member Murphy asked what 1428 homework assignment staff would recommend for individual commissioners between 1429 now and the next meeting. 1430