pm_020409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 04, 2009 Page 12 prepared for the February 4, 2009 Planning Commission meeting; subject to the 536 conditions of Section 9 of the staff report dated February 4, 2009t; with final 537 approval by the City Council considered after all conditions and required 538 documents and permits have been submitted for final approval; with those final 539 approvals considered as a separate application process. 540 Commissioner Boerigter opined that the proposed motion was a bad decision on the part 541 of the Commission and that they were doing the City a disservice by outright denial for 542 higher density use of this property; with opportunities available to make revisions to the 543 proposed project that could make it fit better and alleviate neighborhood concerns. 544 Commissioner Doherty opined that he was not opposed to ultimately changing to medium 545 density; but that this project as proposed was too high in density. 546 Commissioner Gottfried opined that he was not supportive of the project itself, in addition 547 to the citizen concerns expressed and his reservations on the total size. 548 Commissioner Gottfried moved to reconsider all votes. 549 Chair Bakeman advised that this motion was out of line as a motion was currently on the 550 table. 551 Ayes: 3 (Martinson; Beset; and Bakeman) 552 Nays: 3 (Doherty; Boerigter; and Wozniak) 553 Abstentions: 1 (Gottfried) 554 Motion tied. 555 Chair Bakeman advised that a motion to reconsider would need to be brought forward by 556 the original makers of the motion. 557 Discussion ensued as to the preferred process at this time for reconsideration of previous 558 actions. 559 Commissioner Doherty advised that he was open to discussion of alternatives of the 560 motion at this time; however, he advised that he would have to be convinced if that 561 proposed action as to high density. 562 Commissioner Gottfried opined that he’d like the Planning Commission to look at the 563 specific property to determine if there was a general consensus as to whether this project 564 was way over density preferences for this property; and expressed his interest in a 565 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to properly identify this property for future land use 566 designation. 567 Commissioner Best opined that it appeared that Commissioners could support land use 568 designation other than single-family, residential. However, Commissioner Best further 569 opined that this particular development, with the number of proposed units, height, 570 setback limitations, and mass, didn’t seem to be the best use of this parcel. While 571 recognizing the need to accommodate more families in Roseville, he questioned if this 572 could be accomplished without this massive of a project on this size of parcel. 573 Commissioner Best spoke in support of something more than single-family for this parcel. 574 Chair Bakeman noted that the Comprehensive Plan served as a guide for future land use; 575 and was not tied to any specific proposal, but was a separate consideration. Chair 576 Bakeman separated the considerations of the Commission: what it envisioned this 577 property becoming in the future; zoning of the property to match that Comprehensive Plan 578 designation; and the proposal itself and concerns with its mass, setbacks, water 579 treatment, etc. 580 Commissioner Martinson opined that it appeared to be the “cart before the horse” in this 581 situation; opining that even if the zoning and project were not tied, she couldn’t support 582 the rezoning until she knew the conditions for that rezoning. 583