2010-09-29_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 29, 2010 Page 5 With all due respect, the developers noted their purpose in comment was to 206 clarify any misconceptions of the public and dissuade rumors of three hundred 207 (300) subsidized units being planned; and emphasize their efforts to design a 208 complementary multi-family housing development to those existing multi-family 209 housing options in the immediate area, and had done so based on the HDR land 210 use designation. 211 Public Comment 212 Rita Mix, 3207 Old Highway 8 (speaking for the townhome’s homeowner’s 213 association) 214 Ms. Mix thanked Mr. Rehnquist for his cooperation with association management 215 in providing drainage easements on the property interests he represents; and 216 expressed appreciation to the amount of planning for the site, while offering no 217 personal evaluation of those plans; and spoke specific to the property at 3253 218 Old Highway 8, noting that her written comments had previously been provided 219 to Mr. Paschke. 220 Ms. Mix reviewed the development of the townhomes between 1998 – 2001 as a 221 Planned Unit Development (PUD), with ten (10) units built in Roseville, along with 222 ponding and the condominium building, and the other units located in St. Anthony 223 Village. Ms. Mix advised that in 2009, easements were purchased from the 224 property at 3253 Old Highway 8 to address significant water ponding and 225 flooding from their property; subsequently allowing the association to install a 226 private French drain system at a cost of $35,000 to the townhome units and 227 association, pointing out locations on the displayed aerial map during her 228 comments. Ms. Mix expressed concern that the proposed HDR status and 229 proposed development at 3253 would result in the return of serious drainage 230 issues for the townhomes. Ms. Mix also expressed concern in property values 231 being negatively impacted, as well as the view from townhomes overlooking the 232 two subject properties and any pending HDR development of 3253; as well as 233 negatively affect their quality of life, along with infrastructure in the immediate 234 area, insufficient to support current needs, including a lack of pedestrian-friendly 235 amenities or access to Sand Castle Park across County Road C-2. Ms. Mix 236 urged the Planning Commission to vote against HDR for these subject 237 properties. 238 Mr. Rehnquist From the audience,disputed Ms. Mix’s interpretation of the 239 drainage easement locations. 240 Karen Hagen, 2485 Old Highway 8 (across street) 241 As a mother who’s son had been hit by a car in the area, and as a Roseville 242 taxpayer, Ms. Hagen expressed her safety concerns and existing challenges with 243 three schools located in the immediate area; current traffic issues and potential 244 additional traffic impacts; and lack of traffic signals. 245 Mike McCloskey, 2525 County Road C-2 West 246 Mr. McCloskey reviewed the history of his purchase of the land for his new home, 247 demolition and clean up of soils and ultimate $1 million investment; and the 248 potential and significant negative financial impacts of an HDR development as 249 proposed on the subject properties. 250 Joe Demotte, just purchased townhome unit 251 Mr. Demotte opined that the parcels should be designated LDR; and noted that, 252 when he had recently purchased one of the townhomes, he was unaware of this 253 proposed development. Mr. Demotte noted that there was no buffer between the 254 townhomes and existing and proposed apartment buildings, and suggested that 255 the City consider the overall picture, with commercial and industrial uses 256 adjacent to this residential area, and only allow LDR development with additional 257 townhomes. Mr. Demotte cautioned that consideration should be given to the 258