2014_0421_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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