CC_Minutes_2016_0523 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 23, 2016 Page 25 cilmember Etten also questioned the general purpose for LDR and allowing for sufficient space between homes, noting homes in LDR-2 sections of this devel- opment continued to increase in value resulting in some pretty expensive homes. Councihnember Laliberte spoke in favor of some space, but also expressed con- cern about resulting large homes on tiny lots. To keep continuity with what was already in Roseville, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of what was al- ready in place; and while being open to a smaller number, stated that the recom- mended 50% was too high for her. Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte, and recognized Councilmember Etten's opposition to this development in the first place, since he is familiar with the topography of this area. Councilmember McGehee noted that this touched on Councilmember Laliberte's comments, and involved how to move forward as a community with infill development and increasing density, and what the aesthetic of the community was. While willing to give a little, Councilmem- ber McGehee stated she would not support the recommended 50%, but would also not be unhappy remaining at the 30%, Mayor Roe noted there were two Councilmembers not wishing to move from the current 30%, and three who might consider more than that. Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, enacting an ordinance limiting a maxi- mum improvement area to 35% rather than the current 30%. City Attorney Gaughan specified that this ordinance was proposed as a specific text amendment at 50%; and therefore any action other than that would require DENIAL of the request with specific findings; followed by subsequent action by the City Council. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan recommended that the most appropriate subsequent action would be to go back to the Planning Commission process separate fonn this action. Mr. Lloyd clarified that the request, at its core, was to consider more than 30% as is currently written in city code, with the 50% being a suggested and reasonable benchmark addressing building footprint and parking needs for LDR-2 zoning designation. While it appeared in the application, Mr. Lloyd advised that the 50% was not the number being ultimately sought by the applicant. Mayor Roe noted that there was a specific statement in paragraph three of the ap- plicant's narrative seeking city code change for minimum area to 50% coverage; and deemed that represented a specific request. Therefore, as noted by City At- torney Gaughan, Mayor Roe suggested denial of the request, with subsequent di-