2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A d. PLANNING FILE 16-010 1 Request by Golden Valley Land Company to AMEND Roseville City Code, Section 2 1004.09.C (Improvement Area) to allow greater development of building footprints 3 and paved surfaces on parcels in the LDR-2 Zoning District 4 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PLANNING FILE 16-010 at 8:32 p.m. 5 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request as detailed in the staff report and 6 attachments dated May 4, 2016 and rationale for suggested changes. 7 In Lines 12 13 of the staff report, Chair Boguszewski noted reference in the table to 8 hard surface and questioned if this language was intentional. 9 Mr. Lloyd suggested that may be an oversight, since there were not many R-2 zoned 10 parcels in the old zoning code, and therefore not many LDR-2 zoned parcels in the 11 current zoning code. Mr. Lloyd opined that it was typical to routinely think of the 30% limit 12 and that had been inadvertently carried over without considering distinction with lot sizes. 13 Member Daire asked if the old R-2 was comparable with the LDR-2 zoning. 14 Mr. Lloyd responded that, in some ways they were comparable, but the old version was 15 more conventional in nature and set up with categories of zoning districts, distinctly R-1 16 and R-2 with R-2 allowing not only single-family uses, but duplexes and/or twin homes as 17 well, or smaller multi-family uses. However, both required the same minimum lot sizes for 18 either R-1 or R-2 as with LDR-2; with the new code allowing for smaller lot sizes. 19 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 20 Commission Deliberation 21 Member Daire reviewed potential ratios to apply and calculations between 40% to 60% 22 and how impervious surface would be impacted and their variables and results. Member 23 Daire opined that from his perspective and calculations, consider 40% as a 24 reasonable impervious surface allowance on a 3,300 square foot or larger lot based on 25 proportionality. In that case, if the developer could put a larger building footprint on the lot 26 and a 2-car wide driveway with double garage, Member Daire opined that this 27 leave much remaining square footage for a house. If he were a developer, Member Daire 28 further opined that he could do that it would be nice, but in terms of equality, opined 40% 29 was sufficient and questioned whether it actually 30 Chair Boguszewski stated he had considered the 40% ratio, but was actually more 31 comfortable with the 50% in line with other categories; and would support a motion at 32 50% as recommended by staff. 33 In looking at density differences among zoning designations, Member Bull stated he 34 considered more density per unit and the number of units versus density of paved areas, 35 especially with lot sizes at a minimum versus maximum or absolute. If they have 30% 36 capability, Member Bull noted it stayed proportional with LDR-1 and LDR-2. Member Bull 37 stated he took some exception to calculations for a 2-car driveway and by given 38 city code driveway requirements, especially if the goal is to look at move-up housing and 39 opportunities to add to main floor footprints and maximum deductions taken for a 40 driveway, porch, sidewalk and garage. Under that scenario, Member Bull opined he could 41 envision move-up housing with no available green space at all with a 50% paved area 42 installed, and not allowing for any sheds or other outbuildings since the impervious 43 surface would already be maxed out. 44 While that may be hypothetically true, Chair Boguszewski stated his concern was that it 45 may effectively preclude development close to minimum areas or make it impossible to 46 develop. Chair Boguszewski opined that his argument was that since not all lot sizes for 47 LDR-2 are much bigger, it provides more flexibility for a developer to increase impervious 48 somewhat, further opining that 40% to 50% make that noticeable of a 49 difference. 50 When considering LDR-1 or LDR-2, especially with unintended structures such as twin 51 homes or duplexes, Member Bull opined that the argument was not practical with only 52 30% building space on the lot, and further opining that he found this a way to circumvent 53 Page 7 of 8