2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment F Recognizing the need to separate the project from the rezoning request, and the desire to ЋЍВ increase this type of housing in Roseville, Chair Boguszewski opined that his impression was ЋЎЉ that not many parcels within the community could support this type of development. ЋЎЊ Mr. Paschke noted there were a few, but they were limited for multi-family or affordable ЋЎЋ units of any sort, with some of them perhaps in better locations than others; but opined that ЋЎЌ this is a nice location for this type of project. ЋЎЍ Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m., with no additional comment. ЋЎЎ Commission Deliberation ЋЎЏ Member Kimble stated her support of the project, opining it made sense in this location based ЋЎА on the walking distance to amenities and bus transportation. Member Kimble reiterated the ЋЎБ difficulty in separating the zoning request from the proposed use, and difficulty in that ЋЎВ distinction when both are included in the same packet. Member Kimble expressed her hope ЋЏЉ that this develop would have the staying power needed to see this project through to actual ЋЏЊ development, even if funding proves challenging. ЋЏЋ With the city’s goal to avoid or mitigate development adjacent to existing neighborhoods, ЋЏЌ based on prior document and comments from those attending tonight and giving public ЋЏЍ testimony, Chair Boguszewski noted that, if no overwhelming support heard from the ЋЏЎ neighborhood, there also appeared to be no perception that neighbors would find the rezoning ЋЏЏ to be detrimental to them or their property values. Chair Boguszewski noted the goal of ЋЏА affordable housing is good for Roseville and allows current residents to remain, he agreed ЋЏБ with Member Kimble in the separation of the zoning decision and proposed project and ЋЏВ difficulties in differentiating the two. Chair Boguszewski suggested it may be easier to ЋАЉ support the project through the city accepting the risk to achieve its goals in retaining ЋАЊ residents because that’s the right thing to do versus any guidance from the Metropolitan ЋАЋ Council. ЋАЌ Member Gitzen expressed agreement with the comments of Chair Boguszewski and Member ЋАЍ Kimble. Member Gitzen expressed his appreciation for the site and its suitability for this type ЋАЎ of development, with proximity to the library, Har Mar Mall, bus lines and other amenities, ЋАЏ creating lots of pluses for it. Member Gitzen opined that affordable senior housing was ЋАА another plus for the city. ЋАБ Member Murphy agreed with the comments of his colleagues. ЋАВ Member Cunningham noted her strong belief in separating the project from zoning; but in ЋБЉ this case, admitted she loved the proposed project, opining it was fantastic; even though on ЋБЊ many occasions she would say the opposite. In this case, Member Cunningham stated she ЋБЋ would be comfortable even with a larger development on the site, opining she would still ЋБЌ support that higher density. Member Cunningham noted there was not a lot of outpouring ЋБЍ from the community about any objections; and expressed her support of the rezoning request, ЋБЎ and her excitement about the proposed project at this location. ЋБЏ As the city continues to look at its code and areas of it that cause areas of consternation in ЋБА decision-making, Member Bull noted this was one example when proposed projects and ЋББ zoning decisions came before the body at the same time, whether informally or formally. If ЋБВ there was some way to tie those decisions, Member Bull noted it would make everyone’s job ЋВЉ easier, and to know the standards of a project and hoe it would fit on a particular property ЋВЊ tğŭĻАƚŅБ