CC_Minutes_2016_0523 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 23, 2016 Page 13 Councilmember Willmus stated that he shared some of those concerns, but ques- tioned staff as to the date the application was received compared to when the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance. Mr. Paschke clarified that the PUD ordinance was approved after receipt of this application; and while the city could request that the developer go through the PUD process, he questioned if the project would actually qualify. Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee's statements, and those made by Councilmember Etten earlier; and noted that his concern wasn't the proposed project in front of him but the fact the City Council needed to be cognizant of what could be the most intense use on that site, especially with HDR-2 zoning designation. If the project were to return under the PUD ordinance, Councilmember Etten asked staff if the applicant's proposed 50% versus 75% to 80% impervious cover- age would work in favor of the applicant. Mr. Paschke advised that staff would need to review all PUD criteria to see what the developer was bringing to the table, not just specific to density, but if they could actually achieve the bar to begin the PUD process, which was long and drawn out, and had strict limitations on who could come forward to begin that process for a PUD on any site, including this one. Councilmember Etten opined this was an important development for the commu- nity, and something currently lacicing, since a lot of multi-fainily senior housing was available in Roseville, but not from an affordable standpoint. With HRD-2 zoning on this site and its proximity abutting LDR on two sides, Councilmember Etten reiterated his concern in rezoning the property. Mayor Roe noted the current designation in the Zoning Table of Uses with two distinct categories with varying characteristics for each: group living and family living with a certain number of units. Mayor Roe referenced discussion during the time of the proposed development on County Road B and Cleveland Avenue and traditional rental property with a lower number of larger units and more amenities. Mayor Roe suggested looking at that type of scenario and two types of living categories for this type of application as well: traditional family living rent- al units in HDR and a second category for group living that is more specific and regulated such as this; with a line added to the Table of uses for property stand- ards distinguishing maximum density for each category. Mayor Roe noted this would allow for more site-specific consideration for either type of category if ap- plicable, and may prove an easier and quicker solution than the PUD process. Councilmeinber McGehee stated her opposition to such a solution, since it would become applicable across the board based on the table already existing. Coun-