CC_Minutes_2016_0523 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 23, 2016 Page 16 Councilmember Laliberte admitted she was struggling with this, but concurred with her colleagues: that it was a good proposal and a good addition for Roseville, but created discomfort for her in the build forward design standards resulting in a very tall building right up along the road. Mayor Roe clarified that city code would require that the building be set back 30' from the street. Councilmember Laliberte stated she was in favor of a project like this in Rose- ville, but not with the potential intensity of use on this parcel in the future. Coun- cilmember Laliberte stated she was open to other potential scenarios, but in this case, she would support the findings in the motion. Councilmember Etten asked staff if there was a way to put a maximum on a struc- ture in HDR-2 zoning, as it related to underground and/or surface parking. Mr. Paschke responded that it would depend on the size of the units and commu- nity space and other amenities of the facility, all project-dependent. On this par- ticular site, Mr. Paschke stated that he could not define a specific maximum den- sity. Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to the motion to deny the rezoning request, while understanding the findings and concern about future development or redevelop- ment on the parcel if this project doesn't move forward. However, if the project doesn't move forward, Mayor Roe noted the City still retained the option to change HDR-2 requirements or initiate its own rezoning of the property. If the City Council is of the mind that this appears to be a solution for this project going forward, but concern remains that some other development may push the HDR-2 requirements, there is in the code already a footnote available to help mitigate the situation. Mayor Roe stated that he was more uncomfortable with this discussion than with other potential paths (e.g. PUD process or his suggested text amend- ment) and therefore would oppose the motion. Councilmember Etten stated he was in agreement with Mayor Roe. While sup- porting the reasons stated for denial, Councilmember Etten opined that Mr. Paschke's point about the maximum potential density that could develop and Mayor Roe's point that if this development proposal fell through, the City could move to reinstate HDR-1 zoning, it was sufficient for him to noted that this was such an important project for Roseville, he would oppose the motion to deny. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the motion to deny in the hopes that the city would work with the developer to come up with a solution to make the project work.