CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

igh616 Chair Doherty clarified that only the public comment portion of the meeting was closed, but that 617 the entire meeting, including commission discussion, remained open to the public, as always, and 618 take into consideration that public comment heard tonight, as well as written comment to -date. 619 Steve Enzler, 1995 W County Road B 620 Mr. Enzler noted that the previous Comprehensive Plan had apparently not taken his property into 621 consideration, and provided a history of the property, defining his and his neighbor's parcels as 622 "legacy properties," and reviewed past adjacent property sales for redevelopment. Mr. Enzler 623 opined that his property should be considered as a poster property providing rationale in assigning 624 appropriate zoning designations. Mr. Enzler plead with the Commission to heed this opportunity 625 by State Mandate to clean up various messes in the community, and match zoning and 626 comprehensive planning guidance, ultimately alleviating numerous problems for current and 627 future land uses. On behalf of himself, and property owners at Midland Grove and Ferriswood, 628 with parcels designated as Medium or High Density, as well as Single family Residential, Mr. 629 Enzler respectfully asked that the Commission consider the two (2) remaining Single family 630 Residential parcels together. 631 At the request of Chair Doherty, Mr. Enzler admitted that he preferred both parcels to remain 632 Single- Family Residential, noting that the neighboring property owner would most likely support 633 High Density, while the Comprehensive Plan guided it for Medium Density. 634 Mr. Paschke noted that Comprehensive Plan guidance took into consideration recommended 635 future development, not just pre- existing situations. 1111 636 Mr. Enzler opined that, given the twenty-five (25) year legacy between the Comprehensive Plan, 637 zoning and his existing use, his property was unique enough that the Comprehensive Plan should 638 support the long -term Single family Residential status of the parcels. Mr. Enzler noted that the 639 adjacent property under discussion was already designated Single family Residential. 640 Mary Alexander, 14 Mid Oaks Road 641 Ms. Alexander questioned the City's obligation to meet the Metropolitan Council's pressure to 642 increase housing density, and whether they helped pay for that increased density, or for increased 643 infrastructure (i.e., street) issues. Ms. Alexander opined that the City had enough high density 644 housing, and that the City of Roseville was unique, and while needing to clear up discrepancies, 645 suggested that the City remain unique and not attempt to revert to being similar to other 646 communities or to being "average." 647 Paul Johnston, 1406 Burke Avenue 648 Off microphone, Mr. Johnston also questioned the need to meet the recommendations of the 649 Metropolitan Council, recognizing that "change happens." 650 Mr. Paschke reviewed the requirements for each municipality to achieve a certain amount of 651 density with each respective municipality's Comprehensive Plan guiding that density, with the 652 Metropolitan Council having to approve those Plans, under State Statute, which in turn governs 653 the zoning and/or rezoning for each municipality and based on the Livable Communities Act Aik 654 density requirements for metropolitan communities. Mr. Paschke advised that, while not aware of ler