2010-06-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 02, 2010 Page 9 Chair Doherty clarified that only the public comment portion of the meeting was 404 closed, but that the entire meeting, including commission discussion, remained 405 open to the public, as always, and take into consideration that public comment 406 heard tonight, as well as written comment to-date. 407 Steve Enzler, 1995 W County Road B 408 Mr. Enzler noted that the previous Comprehensive Plan had apparently not taken 409 his property into consideration, and provided a history of the property, defining 410 his and his neighbor’s parcels as “legacy properties,” and reviewed past adjacent 411 property sales for redevelopment. Mr. Enzler opined that his property should be 412 considered as a poster property providing rationale in assigning appropriate 413 zoning designations. Mr. Enzler plead with the Commission to heed this 414 opportunity by State Mandate to clean up various messes in the community, and 415 match zoning and comprehensive planning guidance, ultimately alleviating 416 numerous problems for current and future land uses. On behalf of himself, and 417 property owners at Midland Grove and Ferriswood, with parcels designated as 418 Medium or High Density, as well as Single-family Residential, Mr. Enzler 419 respectfully asked that the Commission consider the two (2) remaining Single- 420 family Residential parcels together. 421 At the request of Chair Doherty, Mr. Enzler admitted that he preferred both 422 parcels to remain Single-Family Residential, noting that the neighboring property 423 owner would most likely support High Density, while the Comprehensive Plan 424 guided it for Medium Density. 425 Mr. Paschke noted that Comprehensive Plan guidance took into consideration 426 recommended future development, not just pre-existing situations. 427 Mr. Enzler opined that, given the twenty-five (25) year legacy between the 428 Comprehensive Plan, zoning and his existing use, his property was unique 429 enough that the Comprehensive Plan should support the long-term Single-family 430 Residential status of the parcels. Mr. Enzler noted that the adjacent property 431 under discussion was already designated Single-family Residential. 432 Mary Alexander, 14 Mid Oaks Road 433 Ms. Alexander questioned the City’s obligation to meet the Metropolitan Council’s 434 pressure to increase housing density, and whether they helped pay for that 435 increased density, or for increased infrastructure (i.e., street) issues. Ms. 436 Alexander opined that the City had enough high density housing, and that the 437 City of Roseville was unique, and while needing to clear up discrepancies, 438 suggested that the City remain unique and not attempt to revert to being similar 439 to other communities or to being “average.” 440 Paul Johnston, 1406 Burke Avenue 441 Off microphone, Mr. Johnston also questioned the need to meet the 442 recommendations of the Metropolitan Council, recognizing that “change 443 happens.” 444 Mr. Paschke reviewed the requirements for each municipality to achieve a certain 445 amount of density with each respective municipality’s Comprehensive Plan 446 guiding that density, with the Metropolitan Council having to approve those 447 Plans, under State Statute, which in turn governs the zoning and/or rezoning for 448 each municipality and based on the Livable Communities Act density 449 requirements for metropolitan communities. Mr. Paschke advised that, while not 450 aware of all of the specific ramifications for not meeting those requirements, 451 there were a number of issues and concerns, including any and all federal and 452 state funding passed through state agencies to municipalities that would be 453 impacted. Mr. Paschke further advised that Metropolitan Council had its own 454 regional Comprehensive Plan that was inclusive of each municipality within the 455 regions that addressed the regional infrastructure system (i.e., roads, sanitary 456