CC_Minutes_2016_0523 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 23, 2016 Page 17 Councihneinber Laliberte stated that this ongoing discussion had swayed her and she would oppose the motion to deny. At the request of Councilmember McGe- hee as to her rationale in doing so, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the fear factor seeined to be a potential for 250 units, creating her original hesitation in supporting the project; and since it appeared not to be feasible, the overall need for and nature of this particular project is important to the community. Roll Call Ayes: Willmus and McGehee. Nays: Laliberte, Etten, and Roe. Motion failed. Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. _(Attach- ment G) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code, Changing the Zoning Designation of Certain Real Property;" rezoning the property addressed at 1415 County Road B from HDR-1 to HDR-2 District. Councilmember Etten noted that he would appreciate other ways to make the pro- ject worlc outside rezoning, he had been convinced that the parcel was small enough that the feared 250 units could not be developed, negating that potential great negative as being unrealistic given current code restraints. Councilmember Willmus expressed his concern with the overall height of the proposed building to those adjacent single-family parcels; and stated his contin- ued opposition to the rezoning request. Had the rezoning request not been suc- cessful, Councilmember Willmus opined that the PUD process could have suf- ficed, with little effort on the city's part. Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council was being shortsighted and taking the easy road out especially with long-term implications for the area in doing so. Councilmember Laliberte asked Councilmember Willmus what path he saw going forward in proposing the PUD process at this stage. Councilmember Willmus stated his preference to revisit the PUD ordinance. Councilmember Willmus stated that he had no issue with the developer's pro- posed 62 units; but explained that his issue was that potential project that could occur. Councilmember Willmus noted that he wasn't implying that this developer is going to change their proposal, but noted that they could market this parcel as HDR-2 without developing their proposed project; and there would be nothing the city could do. Councilmember McGehee stated her only concern was that if the PUD ordinance is so restrictive it can't be used to facilitate a project like this that was sorely needed in Roseville and serving the population needing this type of housing at this favorable location, then something was wrong with that PUD ordinance.