2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

requirements of the City Code can be met. In the case of the Good Samaritan proposal, SRF 43 Consulting Group was hired by the Public Works Department to study two scenarios: 44 1.The proposed 62-unit senior housing project. 45 2.250 units, which is deemed the maximum number of units a developer could construct on 46 the site given City design standard limitations. 47 According to the traffic study (Attachment C), overall operations at all intersections in the study 48 area will operate under the acceptable level of service A (LOS), and no roadway network 49 improvements are necessary for the 62-unit development. If the higher density residential 50 scenario is developed, Ramsey County would consider adding a right-turn lane at Albert Street 51 for west bound traffic on County Road B since this turning movement increases. A shared access 52 to the existing Rose Mall apartments should also be considered to reduce conflict points. 53 HDR-1 and HDR-2 districts were created as two exclusive zoning districts that are compatible 54 with the HR designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division staff, therefore, finds 55 that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. 56 The required open house meeting for this proposal was held by the applicant on January 14, 2016. A 57 summary of the discussion at the meeting is included with this report in Attachment E. 58 PCPCA UBLIC OMMENT AND LANNING OMMISSION CTION 59 On May 4, 2016, the Roseville Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing 60 requested by Good Samaritan Society. At the hearing two citizens addressed the Commission 61 indicating their support for both the rezoning and the proposed affordable senior housing project. 62 Planning Commissioners asked several questions of staff pertaining to the difference of HDR-1 63 to HDR-2, specifically the increase in density, building height, and structure placement on the 64 property. City Planner Paschke indicated that the HDR-2 standards required increased setback 65 for more impactful projects and that the Code also required that the structure be placed near the 66 intersecting streets. 67 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning of 1415 County 68 Road B PIN 10-29-23-34-0006 from HDR-1 to HDR-2 based on the comments and findings of 69 the project report dated May 4, 2016. The minutes extract can be found on Attachment F. 70 RCCA ECOMMENDED ITY OUNCIL CTIONS 71 a. Adopt an Ordinance rezoning the property addressed at 1415 County Road B from High 72 Density Residential-1 District to High Density Residential-2 District. 73 b.Pass a motion to table the application for future action. Tabling the rezoning would 74 require extension of the 60-day action deadline established in Minn. Stat. 15.99. 75 c.By motion, recommend denial of the request. A recommendation to deny the 76 application should be supported by specific findings of fact based on the Planning 77 review of the application, applicable City Code regulations, and the public 78 record. 79 Prepared by Thomas Paschke, City Planner, 651-792-7074 thomas.paschke@cityofroseville.com C: Traffic study Attachments: A: Area map B: Aerial photo 14.a PF16-006_RCA_052316 Page 3 of 4