Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 04, 2009 <br /> <br />Page 12 <br />Mr. Christianson, as a former Planner in the United States and Canada, applauded the <br />efforts of those speakers and their eloquence. Mr. Christianson asked that the <br />Commission remember that their decisions were long-term; and concurred with the <br />comments of Attorney Peter Coyle. <br />Steve Enzler, representing family, 1995 W County Road B <br />Mr. Enzler read an e-mail from Frank Walton of the Roseville Historical Society, related to <br />the historical nature of his family property, identified on the Heritage Trail, #47, and the <br />lack of notice of the Historical Society of any proposed activities on this site; and future <br />notice in accordance. Mr. Walton’s comments addressed concerns with mass and the <br />need to honor the green space indicative of this property. <br />Mr. Enzler’s personal comments included opining that the current proposal may more <br />accurately reflect future use of the property; that it was apparently not the intent of the <br />Comprehensive Plan to eliminate his single-family residential property. Mr. Enzler opined <br />that Mr. Mueller was attempting to undermine code limits by use of the PUD application; <br />and further opined that the building still remained massive in relationship to his property <br />and home; and that his property would experience dramatic and negative impacts to <br />sunlight, air and view; and opined that it seemed to be a reasonable claim that this could <br />damage the value of their home in addition to their quality of life. <br />Mr. Enzler noted previous lot line delineation errors; and expressed his willingness to <br />work with Mr. Mueller in seeking resolution. <br />Andy Weyer, 2025 W County Road B <br />Mr. Weyer presented his historical perspective of the property, and rationale for it’s <br />inclusion on the Heritage Trail based on the original home’s construction; and offered that <br />the home could easily be relocated for greater use. Mr. Weyer opined that the property <br />itself was not of historical import; and the home itself was originally moved from its former <br />location to facilitate construction of Midland Grove, which property was originally owned <br />by his ancestors, and allowing for growth and progress. Mr. Weyer opined that things <br />change; and there was value in moving forward for the community, as well as with what <br />remained of his family homestead. <br />Allene Wiley <br />Ms. Wiley opined that Mr. Weyer had his own private road, mailbox and address and <br />would experience minimal impacts to his private property; however, she noted that while <br />he would make considerable money on the sale of this remaining portion of his family’s <br />farmstead, it didn’t mean that Midland Grove Road needed to be further impacted. Ms. <br />Wiley opined that it may be more advantageous to Mr. Weyer financially if the property <br />were sold for single-family housing and provide an asset to the neighborhood rather than <br />a detriment. <br />Art Mueller, Developer <br />Mr. Mueller responded to public comments; and provided his historical perspective of and <br />his personal development of Midland Grove and Ferriswood, in addition to this proposal; <br />noting the positive benefit of the previous projects to the City. Mr. Mueller questioned if <br />there were others supporting the project, but not appearing to speak in that support; and <br />noted his experience in receiving positive support for the proposed project and the need <br />for this senior housing option. <br />Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing at 10:40 p.m. <br />MOTION (9.1) <br />Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Boerigter to RECOMMEND <br />APPROVAL of the COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT of 2025 <br />County Road B West from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. <br />Discussion included clarification that the density designation would stay with the property <br />even if this proposal was not approved, while further clarifying the process through items <br />to be solidified (i.e., PUD Agreement; submission of plans and documents; recording of <br /> <br />