2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment F Extract of the May 4, 2016, Roseville Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.PLANNING FILE 16-006 Request by Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society to REZONE 1415 County Road B from High Density Residential-1 District to High Density Residential-2 District to afford more flexible design and an increase in unit density C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PLANNING FILE 16-006 at 7:42 p.m. Њ City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request as detailed in the staff report and Ћ attachments dated May 4, 2016 and rationale for suggested changes. Ќ Mr. Paschke reported that staff had not accepted the initial application for this project Ѝ pending a traffic study, now available and included in meeting packet materials. Mr. Paschke Ў noted that the study indicated that this proposed project density for the site and development Џ project, as well as maximizing the site for other potential HDR-2 uses that may create a А greater number of units per acre within code requirements were all possible without creating Б any major impacts to the road network system. From that standpoint, Mr. Paschke advised В that staff could therefore support the project and recommended its approval, even if a ЊЉ development proposal came forward at greater density allowed by code for HDR-2 if and ЊЊ when the zoning change is approved. Mr. Paschke advised that if there had been any major ЊЋ impacts or concerns as a result of the traffic study or from Ramsey County, staff may have ЊЌ changed their recommendation for approval, since once a parcel was rezoned it was difficult ЊЍ to undo. Mr. Paschke noted that the requested zoning change was consistent with the ЊЎ comprehensive plan for the parcel designated for high density, with the city only having two ЊЏ divisions for higher or lower density and different design standards applying to each ЊА accordingly. ЊБ With Chair Boguszewski noting there was no upper limit on HDR-2, Mr. Paschke clarified ЊВ that those limits would be through the design standards and maximum height allowances ЋЉ built into zoning code and thereby limiting how many units based on design standards and lot ЋЊ amenities. Mr. Paschke noted that the traffic study considered a maximum scenario of 250 ЋЋ units, but when other design elements and standards in code are applied, that high of a ЋЌ density would be difficult for any project to achieve. ЋЍ Chair Boguszewski opined that underlying zoning isn’t necessarily tied to this proposed ЋЎ project, but if a future or alternate project came forward, with zoning staying with the land, ЋЏ there was the potential for a much larger and denser development. ЋА Mr. Paschke reiterated that there could be more units, but from his perspective, it would be ЋБ difficult to achieve anywhere near 250 units; and clarified that the current project prompting ЋВ this rezoning request was proposed for 62 units. ЌЉ Discussion ensued as to the physical location of the proposed project; and zoning and density ЌЊ allowances of other multi-family complexes in the immediate area (e.g. Rose Mall ЌЋ Apartments). ЌЌ tğŭĻЊƚŅБ