2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A thatsituation.SincethisisthefirsttimeanythinghasbeendonewithLDR-2since 54 rezoning rewrites in 2010, Member Bull suggested caution, making him lean toward not 55 supportingthestaffrequestedlanguagerewriteoranythinglowerthanthe50%as 56 recommended. 57 Member Murphy asked Member Bull to clarify his comments on move-up housing, 58 opining that his comments fit with his personal recollection for this, and whether 59 Member Bull considered these properties suitable for move-up or first-time homeowners. 60 Member Bull clarified that he considered them move-up housing from HDR apartment 61 living for those wanting to stay in their same neighborhood but also moving to single- 62 family versus multi-family housing stock versus from one home to a larger home, but in 63 this case into a starter home. 64 Member Gitzen stated his support for changing as per recommendation to a higher 65 percentage; opining that he could support 40% or 50%, either which could be arbitrary 66 depending on your particular reasoning; but reiterated his support for either or. 67 Member Murphy opined that, from his perspective, the different in LDR-1 and LDR2 was 68 that LDR-2 allowed smaller lots. While the staff report suggested 550% as a good starting 69 discussion point, Member Murphy opined he could feel comfortable with 50%. Member 70 Murphy stated that part of the situation was that you were buying into that percentage; 71 you had the choice of more green space or more hard surface for the footprint. 72 Particularly today, Member Murphy noted that it was common for at least a two-car 73 garage and 2-stall car width driveway and garage space. If a prospective homeowner 74 wanted something closer to 50% versus 30%, Member Murphy noted it would impact that 75 first floor footprint accordingly. 76 Member Bull asked staff if they had researched any comparables to communities around 77 Roseville. 78 Mr. Lloyd responded that staff actually looked at surrounding communities; but in 79 terms of provision, advised it would be difficult to find anyway as lot size requirements 80 were typically much smaller in other communities, especially for single-family zoning 81 designations. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd opined it would be hard to make direct comparisons in 82 that regard. 83 MOTION 84 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the City 85 Council APPROVAL of the proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (Section 86 1004.09.C Improvement Area), based on the comments and findings of the staff 87 report dated May 4, 2016, for a 50% allowance in LDR-2 designated districts. 88 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 89 Member bull moved, seconded by Member Daire, a friendly amendment to the 90 motion, to allow impervious surface area at 40% in LDR-2 designated districts. 91 FRIENDLY AMENMDENT 92 Ayes: 3 (Cunningham, Daire and Bull) 93 Nays: 4 (Kimble, Murphy, Gitzen and Boguszewski,) 94 Motion failed. 95 MOTION AS ORIGINALLY STATED 96 Ayes: 5 (Cunningham, Kimble, Murphy, Gitzen and Boguszewski) 97 Nays: 2 (Bull and Daire) 98 Motion carried 99 Page 8 of 8