CC_Minutes_2016_0523 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 23, 2016 Page 24 rected staff to enhance the City's website to provide connections and links as ap- plicable to the SE Roseville effort. 15. Business Items — Presentations/Discussions a. Request to Amend City Code, Section 1004.09C (Improvement Area) to Al- low Greater Development of Building Footprints and Paved Surfaces on Par- cels in the Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) Zoning District Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this unintentional disparity in city code adopted in 1998 related to building footprints and paved surfaces on LDR-2 zoned parcels, as detailed in the RCA and attachments. Mr. Lloyd noted most of the challenges were found with older properties and smaller lots in the LDR-2 district that served as an important source for housing stock variety in the community. Councilmember Willinus stated he found staff's recommended 50% allotment too excessive. Councilmember Willmus noted that one of the reasons he had found LDR-2 zoning designation attractive in the first place was it could help provide for smaller, but newer single-family homes at a more affordable rate within to- day's market, with those coverages and smaller lot sizes coining into play. When he considered this 50% recommendation, Councihnember Willmus opined that you could wind up with a fairly significant home on an LDR-2 zoned lot, which was certainly not his intent to facilitate. Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus, especially the changes proposed compared to her maximum lot minimum areas and hard sur- face maximums when first adopted, and her interest in providing for smaller homes on sinaller lots. Councilmember McGehee noted that she continued to look for legislative changes to retain water on individual properties without sig- nificant investment in underground tanks or rain garden installations, creating a lifelong liability to maintain. Councilmember McGehee opined that 40% was more than adequate for LDR-2 zoned parcels. In reviewing proportionality, Mayor Roe provided his calculations and differences in area between LDR-1 and LDR-2 zoning and proportionality with the ultimate goal in mind. Mayor Roe stated his lack of support for the 50% recoinmendation, but agreed to consider something between 35% to 50%. Councilmember Etten noted that he had previously voted against LDR-2 and in- creasing impervious surface over six lots, and moving from 3 potential homes to six now, and arriving at a similar square footage of impervious surface at 30%. Councilmember Etten stated that he was uncomfortable with the proposed big jump to 18,000 square feet or impervious surface over that area, but would be open to some increase. Councilmember Etten stated his first concern was over water and stormwater drainage problems already in existence in that area. Coun-