2016-06-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Page 14 more cautionary option of not knowing what project might develop under this zoning 659 designation, but not supporting up to 250 units.Member Bull opined he felt he was on the 660 side of taking a leap of faith form this investment company based on the research they’d 661 put into the proposed project, and their architectural renderings.Therefore, Member Bull 662 spoke in support of the rezoning request. 663 Member Murphy spoke in support of the rezoning, noting minimal traffic indicated form 664 the proposed project even under the worst case scenario.Member Murphy also noted the 665 walking distance to area amenities; as well as the good reputation of Good Samaritan 666 Society for this type of development.Member Murphy stated he was willing to accept the 667 risk that another project may occur on the site, but under design standards as per city 668 code. 669 MOTION 670 Member Murphymoved, seconded by Member Cunninghamto recommend to the 671 City Council, APPROVAL of the proposed REZONING of Ramsey County PIN 10-29- 672 23-34-0006 from HDR-1 to HDR-2, based on the comments and findings of the staff 673 report dated May 4, 2016. 674 Chair Boguszewski encouraged the development team, with the support of city staff, to 675 continue their community engagement efforts to hear any ideas that neighbors have a 676 preference for in citing the building footprint on the parcel; including any necessary 677 variance processes if appropriate. 678 Ayes: 7 679 Nays: 0 680 Motion carried 681 d.PLANNING FILE 16-010 682 Request by Golden Valley Land Company to AMEND Roseville City Code, Section 683 1004.09.C (Improvement Area) to allow greater development of building footprints 684 and paved surfaces on parcels in the LDR-2 Zoning District 685 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PLANNING FILE 16-010 at 8:32p.m. 686 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request as detailed in the staff report and 687 attachments dated May 4, 2016 and rationale for suggested changes. 688 In Lines 12 –13 of the staff report, Chair Boguszewski noted reference in the table to 689 “gradual hard surface allowances,” and questioned if this language was intentional. 690 Mr. Lloyd suggested that may be an oversight, since there were not many R-2 zoned 691 parcels in the old zoning code, and therefore not many LDR-2 zoned parcels in the 692 current zoning code.Mr. Lloyd opined that it was typical to routinelythink of the 30% limit 693 and that had been inadvertently carried over without considering distinction with lot sizes. 694 Member Daire asked if the old R-2 was comparable with the LDR-2 zoning. 695 Mr. Lloyd responded that, in some ways they were comparable, but the old version was 696 more conventional in nature and set up with categories of zoning districts, distinctly R-1 697 and R-2 with R-2 allowing not only single-family uses, but duplexes and/or twin homes as 698 well, or smaller multi-family uses.However, both required the same minimum lot sizes for 699 either R-1 or R-2 as with LDR-2; with the new code allowing for smaller lot sizes. 700 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.;no one spokefor or against. 701 Commission Deliberation 702 Member Daire reviewed potential ratios to apply and calculations between 40% to 60% 703 and how impervious surface would be impacted and their variables and results.Member 704 Daire opined that from his perspective and calculations, he’d consider 40% as a 705 reasonable impervious surface allowance on a 3,300 square foot or larger lot based on 706 proportionality.In that case, if the developer could put a larger building footprint on the lot 707 and a 2-car wide driveway with double garage, Member Daire opined that this wouldn’t 708 leave much remaining square footage for a house.If he were a developer, Member Daire 709