Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, February 04, 2009 <br /> <br />Page 10 <br />Ms. Bloom noted that the distance between Midland Grove and Cleveland was not <br />438 <br />standard roadway construction based on today’s design standards, but that it was what it <br />439 <br />was. <br />440 <br />Art Mueller, Developer <br /> <br />441 <br />Mr. Mueller addressed the setbacks mentioned; noting that the map, to scale, indicated <br />442 <br />that the house was 96’, not 30’ from Mr. Stenson’s home, with two stories on the Fenton R <br />443 <br />road side. <br />444 <br />Mr. Mueller addressed the original size of Mr. Weyer’s property, and Mr. Mueller’s original <br />445 <br />building of Midland Grove Condominiums; and the need to relocate the originally-planned <br />446 <br />road from County B to Highway 36 after construction had started, per Ramsey County <br />447 <br />requirements due to cars stacking on the highway. Mr. Mueller advised that he had <br />448 <br />moved the road back 150’ and purchased a piece of property from Mrs. Gibloski; and then <br />449 <br />when MnDOT came in, they took everything on the one side and County Road B <br />450 <br />accessed additional right-of-way. Mr. Mueller noted that, so as not to land lock the <br />451 <br />Midland Grove property, the piece on the curve was arrived at, limiting the amount of <br />452 <br />property left for the Weyer’s to sell, due to the easements. <br />453 <br />Chair Bakeman refocused discussion on land use, not financial viability; noting that the <br />454 <br />City Council would probably seek additional discussion on that component. <br />455 <br />Dick Brownlee, Station 19 Architects <br />456 <br />Mr. Brownlee expressed the applicant’s willingness to work with staff in making the <br />457 <br />building mass and height more acceptable to neighboring properties; and looked forward <br />458 <br />to creative and effective ways to accomplish that. <br />459 <br />Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing at 9:16 p.m. <br />460 <br />Commissioner Doherty spoke in opposition to the proposal; opining that, as public officials <br />461 <br />there was the implied need to support existing residential zoning codes. Commissioner <br />462 <br />Doherty opined that this was a significant change, noting that the zoning was independent <br />463 <br />of this project, and he’d have to see extraordinary mitigating circumstances to support <br />464 <br />going from low to high density. Commissioner Doherty advised that he’d even need to <br />465 <br />see significant mitigation to go from low to medium density; but expressed his discomfort <br />466 <br />in changing zoning to high density in the midst of some single-family zoned residents. <br />467 <br />Commissioner Boerigter advised that he was not sure if he would support the project in its <br />468 <br />current format; however, he disagreed with Commissioner Doherty on zoning, based on <br />469 <br />its proximity to existing condominiums and townhomes next to Cleveland Avenue and <br />470 <br />County Road B. Commissioner Boerigter opined that, from his perspective, this was the <br />471 <br />exact property that should be zoned higher than current land use designation, based on <br />472 <br />the Comprehensive Plan process for higher and better use; this property was one of <br />473 <br />those. Commissioner Boerigter opined that this property should be zoned medium or high <br />474 <br />density, clearly no residential. Commissioner Boerigter noted that he was not entirely <br />475 <br />comfortable with the aspects of the proposal, including the mass of the project among <br />476 <br />others; however, he noted that the City had a mandate from the Metropolitan Council to <br />477 <br />increase density to accommodate additional residents in Roseville, and opined that this <br />478 <br />was how it was going to need to be accomplished. <br />479 <br />Commissioner Martinson opined that, while the City was looking for potential areas for <br />480 <br />development, in other areas of Roseville, consideration was given to a bridge between <br />481 <br />residential and higher density; and this project didn’t seem to be a modulated bridge, <br />482 <br />opining that it was too big of a development for that piece of land at this time. <br />483 <br />Commissioner Martinson recognized that property owners had the right to develop their <br />484 <br />land; but coupling this current plan and a PUD, it became an area of concern, and the City <br />485 <br />could end up with an even larger project based on zoning amendments. <br />486 <br /> <br />