My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0421_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0421_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:43:38 PM
Creation date
4/17/2014 2:45:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment E <br />14� property at 297-311 County Road B, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-8 and the <br />144 recommendation of Section 9 of the staff report dated April 10, 2014. <br />145 Member Boguszewski stated that he was very glad to see this proposed single-family development in <br />146 Roseville; and offered no reason for him to doubt the intent of the developer to create those homes on <br />147 these lots. While recognizing that hypothetically, it may be possible at some point in the distant future that <br />14� a twin home or duplex could be allowed on these lots, given the alternative development potential for this <br />14G site, this proposal was a good one; and this method would enable it to happen. From his understanding of <br />15C the use of variances, Mr. Boguszewski opined that other guidelines required for granting a variance would <br />15+� prohibit the Commission from using that tool, as no practical hardships were in evidence nor could a <br />15� variance be justifiably granted in this interest, since the consideration is based on configuring the lots for <br />153 positive mitigation of existing drainage issues. <br />15� At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd advised that LDR-1 zoning allowed for auxiliary units (e.g. <br />15� mother-in-law units), referred to as "accessory dwellings" in City Code. <br />156 Member Cunningham expressed appreciation for the variance clarification, as she had also been curious <br />15i as to why that option hadn't been considered. If all lots were around 70' in width, Member Cunningham <br />158 asked staff why they were not originally considered as LDR-2 zoning. <br />15e Mr. Lloyd advised that it was less of an intentional circumstance versus meeting specific zoning districts <br />16G as the zoning code received a massive overhaul in 2010 from the existing code adopted in 1959, when <br />16° the standard lot size was larger than most lot sizes currently in existence for single-family homes in the <br />162 community. <br />163 Mr. Paschke concurred with Mr. Lloyd, noting that each lot in the City was not analyzed to determine <br />164 which were substandard, as most single-family residential lots were simply zoned LDR-1; after which <br />165 LDR-2 was created to allow for additional options in the community. Mr. Paschke admitted that the City <br />166 could have taken a considerable amount of time to figure out lots more specifically, but often that resulted <br />167 in patches of zoning that didn't fit well within an overall zoning plan. <br />168 Member Cunningham asked if the action before the Commission tonight was to approve the actual <br />16G development plan or only a zoning change; and asked if approval could be given contingent upon this <br />17G plan being only for single-family residential without the developer being required to return to the <br />17 � Commission if they chose to move to twin homes or duplexes. <br />172 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the requested action tonight was to approve rezoning, easement vacations, and <br />17 � parcel boundary layouts, not to approve a development plan or specific housing design plans. Mr. Lloyd <br />174 advised that several years ago, this same parcel had been considered for twin homes with more density <br />17v than proposed with this current proposal; and became the starting point to re-evaluate the site between <br />17�: then and the current development proposal. Mr. Lloyd noted that the developer had scaled their proposal <br />177 down to single-family residential, as that met current market demand. <br />178 At the prompting of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the developer could change their plan <br />17� as long as it remained within LDR-2 parameters and met all other requirements of that zoning; however, <br />18C: he advised that the Commission could not condition approval that the proposed units were only for single- <br />18°: family residential uses. <br />18� In his review of this proposal, Member Keynan stated that he found this the best option for this site; and <br />18: opined that a variance was not an option. Mr. Keynan noted that he was hearing the fears of the <br />18� neighbors, but was not hearing any alternative for the Commission to address those fears, and <br />18�> questioned if there were other options available to the body. <br />18E Chair Gisselquist clarified that the proposed action before the body was to approve rezoning and the plat, <br />18�' but that the actual use and home designs were not up for consideration at this time. While sympathizing <br />188 with the public speakers and recognizing that at some point down the road, the housing units may <br />18a change, Chair Gisselquist noted that this was ultimately beyond the Commission's control. <br />190 Member Boguszewski opined that, given everything he'd heard, he had no reason to believe there was <br />19� any subterfuge by the applicant, but that their intent was to develop these as single-family properties; and <br />19� especially if their intent was to do so this summer, they actually had no time to redefine their intent in <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.