2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment F Branch. Ms. Kwong opined that there were a lot of amenities for potential residents, with the ЋЉЎ proximity to shopping, and other walkable areas for seniors in the community, and allowing ЋЉЏ them to remain Roseville residents to retain their sense of community versus relocating ЋЉА elsewhere. At this time, Mr. Kwong noted the limited housing available from independent to ЋЉБ full assisted living, with this development providing a good option to maintain that ЋЉВ independent living as an alternative housing option for those unable to afford a more ЋЊЉ expensive location or housing options. Mr. Kwong spoke in support of this requested ЋЊЊ rezoning and the proposed project; opining it allowed the City to meet Metropolitan Council ЋЊЋ suggested guidelines, while allowing residents to retain their sense of community, and was ЋЊЌ far beyond meeting legal requirements. ЋЊЍ Member Daire asked staff how this proposed project would compare in character to Rose ЋЊЎ Pointe as an example. ЋЊЏ Mr. Paschke advised he could not address the type of housing units involved in Rose Pointe ЋЊА as far as market rate or subsidized; but design-wise, was not sure they were much different in ЋЊБ their massing, with 3-4 stories. Mr. Paschke noted that most senior projects were at least 3 ЋЊВ stories, partly due to economics and making them work based on a certain number of units. ЋЋЉ Regarding how the building itself was situated, Mr. Paschke noted that topography between ЋЋЊ the parcels notwithstanding, a number of past projects were also built under a different city ЋЋЋ code and ordinances, with different design standards than those applicable today, including ЋЋЌ setback requirements and proximity to other uses. Mr. Paschke advised that, if staff felt it ЋЋЍ was appropriate when this particular development came forward in the application process, ЋЋЎ staff and/or the developer could suggest increasing the setback on Albert Street or County ЋЋЏ Road B if appropriate to the project. However, Mr. Paschke questioned whether or not their ЋЋА proposal, when presented, would actually suggested that, since today’s code had built-ins for ЋЋБ protecting adjacent lower density uses. ЋЋВ Member Kimble noted the unknowns and risks in acting on rezoning without looking at an ЋЌЉ actual project, especially when a proposed project such as this one isn’t fully funded and that ЋЌЊ funding could be months away. Member Kimble opined that ideally, action would be taken ЋЌЋ on rezoning when there was a better comfort level for a project fully funded and ready to go. ЋЌЌ Mr. Paschke recognized the risks involved; however, he noted that part of a development’s ЋЌЍ ability to proceed was predicated on having things in place (e.g. rezoning) to help them get ЋЌЎ through that financial process with lenders looking to ensure proper zoning was in place for a ЋЌЏ proposed development seeking funding, and impacting their project’s funding score. From ЋЌА staff’s perspective, Mr. Paschke stated that the intent was to be somewhat accommodating to ЋЌБ this proposal, thus staff’s recommendation to the Commission and City Council for their ЋЌВ determination based on staff’s analysis to-date. Mr. Paschke recognized the concerns ЋЍЉ expressed by Member Kimble and other commissioners, but clarified that zoning drives ЋЍЊ funding as well and was part of the process. While it wasn’t the city’s task to help that ЋЍЋ funding along, Mr. Paschke advised it was part of staff’s analysis to accept the proposal ЋЍЌ before them and, in consideration of the traffic study completed, to base their decision on the ЋЍЍ information currently before them. Under that scenario, Mr. Paschke stated that staff believed ЋЍЎ that the proposed development was an appropriate use of this site and the requested zoning ЋЍЏ from HDR-1 to HDR-2 was consistent with the comprehensive plan’s guidance for future use ЋЍА of the site. ЋЍБ tğŭĻЏƚŅБ