pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

214 215 -� ,-� Density; and further opined that it would be appropriate and that he would support that designation. 2is Commissioner Martinson concurred with Commissioner Best to a certain extent, opining 217 that if High Density was applicable to Midland Grove, it might also be reasonable on this zta site; and noted that the developer had made scale revisions that were an overall 279 improvement from the original proposal. Commissioner Martinson observed that 220 realistically, the City of Roseville experienced traffic problems throughout the City, in 22i addition to the region Commissioner Martinson expressed that she had remaining 222 reservations about this proposed project and land use designation; and opined that she z23 would be more inclined to support a Medium Use designation. 214 Commissioner Boerigter opined that, given the density of the adjacent multi-family z25 properties, this site seemed appropriate for High Density designation; and in comparison 226 to other part of the City transitioning from Low to High Densiry, this was not an 227 uncommon situation. Commissioner Boerigter further opined that, in looking at the overall 228 picture, the property wouldn't probably develop into single-family homes, but seemed 223 more applicable for High Density designation. Commissioner Boerigter recognized public 230 comments and concems; however, was still of the opinion that this parcel serves as a 231 transition for the neighborhood and properties across the street, to be consistent, he was 232 still concemed that this project remained of too large a scale to this site. 233 Chair Bakeman opined that High Density designation was appropriate, due to the 23a proximity of Midland Grove at close to 19 units/acre; and the ability to limit the maximum 235 units per acre with the PUD; and that 12 units per acre was not dense enough with 23G Midland Grove's proximity directly adjacent. Chair Bakeman further opined that with the 23i standard street width of 32', she was not concerned aboul tra�c volume. Chair Bakeman 238 opined that she was inclined to support High Density designation, and capping that 2ss density through PUD controls. 240 2ai 242 243 244 245 246 Commissioners Best and Martinson concurred. Commissioner Martinson opined that it made logica! sense to change the zoning, with Midland Grove immediately adjacent; however, she expressed wariness as to whether the PUD was a sound way to limit density. Ayes: 4(Boerigter; Best; Martinson; Bakeman) Nays: 3 (Doherty; Wozniak; Gottfried) Motion carried. 2e7 MOTION (9.2) 2as Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Best to RECOMEMND APRPOVAL 2n9 of the REZONING of 2025 County Road B from Single Family Residential (R-1) to 25o Planned Unit Development (PUD�, with an underlying zoning of General Residence 2.5� District (R-3). 252 Ayes:7 253 N8yS:0 25a Motion carried. 255 MOTION (9.3) 25� Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to RECOMMEND 257 APPROVAL of the GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, as 258 prepared for the March 4, 2D09 Planning Commission meeting; subject to the 255 conditlons ot Section 9 of the staff report dated March 4, 2009; with final approval 2s0 by the City Council considered aiter all conditions and required documents and 267 permlts have been submitted for final approval; with those final approvals 262 considered as a separate application process. 2e3 Commissioner Boerigter questioned the actual concern in making this rezoning change; 2G4 noting that it shouldn't be traffic; the building footprint had been reduced; and noted that 2s5 the wrrent proposal was close to setback requirements and had limited deviations from 266 square footage requirements. Commissioner Boerigter noted that the building mass could