2016-06-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Page 13 development was an appropriate use of this site and the requested zoning from HDR-1 to 607 HDR-2 was consistent with the comprehensive plan’s guidance for future use of the site. 608 Recognizing the need to separate the project from the rezoning request,and the desire to 609 increase this type of housing in Roseville, Chair Boguszewski opined that his impression 610 was that not many parcels within the community could support this type of development. 611 Mr. Paschkenoted there were a few, but they were limited for multi-family or affordable 612 units of any sort, with some of them perhaps in better locations than others; but opined 613 that this is a nice location for this type of project. 614 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 8:24p.m., with no additional comment. 615 Commission Deliberation 616 Member Kimble stated her support of the project, opining it made sense in this location 617 based on the walking distance to amenities and bus transportation.Member Kimble 618 reiterated the difficulty in separating the zoning request from the proposed use, and 619 difficulty in that distinction when both are included in the same packet.Member Kimble 620 expressed her hope that this develop would have the staying power needed to see this 621 project through to actual development, even if funding proves challenging. 622 With the city’s goal to avoid or mitigate development adjacent to existing neighborhoods, 623 based on prior document and comments from those attending tonight and giving public 624 testimony, Chair Boguszewski noted that, if no overwhelming support heard from the 625 neighborhood, there also appeared to be no perception that neighbors would find the 626 rezoning to be detrimental to them or their property values.Chair Boguszewski noted the 627 goal of affordable housing is good for Roseville and allows current residents to remain, 628 he agreed with Member Kimble in the separation of the zoning decision and proposed 629 project and difficulties in differentiating the two.Chair Boguszewski suggested it may be 630 easier to support the project through the city accepting the risk to achieve its goals in 631 retaining residents because that’s the right thing to do versus any guidance from the 632 Metropolitan Council. 633 Member Gitzen expressed agreement with the comments of Chair Boguszewski and 634 Member Kimble.Member Gitzen expressed his appreciation for the site and its suitability 635 for this type of development, with proximity to the library, Har Mar Mall, bus lines and 636 other amenities, creating lots of pluses for it.Member Gitzen opined that affordable 637 senior housing was another plus for the city. 638 Member Murphy agreed with the comments of his colleagues. 639 Member Cunningham noted her strong belief in separating the project from zoning; but in 640 this case, admitted she loved the proposed project, opining it was fantastic; even though 641 on many occasions she would say the opposite.In this case, Member Cunningham 642 stated she would be comfortable even with a larger development on the site, opining she 643 would still support that higher density.Member Cunningham noted there was not a lot of 644 outpouring from the community about any objections; and expressed her support of the 645 rezoning request, and her excitement about the proposed project at this location. 646 As the city continues to look at its code and areas of it that cause areas of consternation 647 in decision-making, Member Bullnoted this was one example when proposed projects 648 and zoning decisions came before the body at the same time, whether informally or 649 formally.If there was some way to tie those decisions, Member Bull noted it would make 650 everyone’s job easier, and to know the standards of a project and hoe it would fit on a 651 particular property under that particular zoning designation versus looking at “what ifs” or 652 worst case scenarios of the highest allowable density.In this case, knowing the traffic 653 study supported the higher zoning designation, Member Bull stated he found helpful. 654 However, with LDR across the street and the potential of looking at a massive wall 655 potentially 95’ high starting back at me, Member Bull questioned if he’d even want that 656 across a 4-lane road.For him, Member Bull noted his options were to take a leap of faith 657 that zoning for a project like this would come in and move forward accordingly; or the 658