2016-06-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Page 15 further opined that he could do that it would be nice, but in terms of equality, opined 40% 710 was sufficient and questioned whether it actually 711 Chair Boguszewski stated he had considered the 40% ratio, but was actually more 712 comfortable with the 50% in line with other categories; and would support a motion at 713 50% as recommended by staff. 714 In looking at density differences among zoning designations, Member Bull stated he 715 considered more density per unit and the number of units versus density of paved areas, 716 especially with lot sizes at a minimum versus maximum or absolute.If they have 30% 717 capability, Member Bull noted it stayed proportional with LDR-1 and LDR-2.Member Bull 718 stated he took some exception to calculations for a 2-car driveway and 18’ by 30’ given 719 city code driveway requirements, especially if the goal is to look at move-up housing and 720 opportunities to add to main floor footprints and maximum deductions taken for a 721 driveway, porch, sidewalk and garage.Under that scenario, Member Bull opined he could 722 envision move-up housing with no available green space at all with a 50% paved area 723 installed, and not allowing for any sheds or other outbuildings since the impervious 724 surface would already be maxed out. 725 While that may be hypothetically true, Chair Boguszewski stated his concern was that it 726 may effectively preclude development close to minimum areas or make it impossible to 727 develop.Chair Boguszewski opined that his argument was that since not all lot sizes for 728 LDR-2 are much bigger, it provides more flexibility for a developer to increase impervious 729 somewhat, further opining that 40% to 50% shouldn’t make that noticeable of a 730 difference. 731 When considering LDR-1 or LDR-2, especially with unintended structures such as twin 732 homes or duplexes, Member Bull opined that the argument was not practical with only 733 30% building space on the lot, and further opining that he found this a way to circumvent 734 that situation.Since this is the first time anything has been done with LDR-2 since 735 rezoningrewrites in 2010, Member Bull suggested caution, making him lean toward not 736 supporting the staff requested language rewrite or anything lower than the 50% as 737 recommended. 738 Member Murphy asked Member Bull to clarify his comments on move-up housing, 739 opining that his comments didn’t fit with his personal recollection for this, and whether 740 Member Bull considered these properties suitable for move-up or first-time homeowners. 741 Member Bull clarified that he considered them move-up housing from HDR apartment 742 livingfor those wanting to stay in their same neighborhood but also moving to single- 743 family versus multi-family housing stock versus from one home to a larger home, but in 744 this case into a starter home. 745 Member Gitzen stated his support for changing as per staff’s recommendation to a higher 746 percentage; opining that he could support 40% or 50%, either which could be arbitrary 747 depending on your particular reasoning; but reiterated his support for either or. 748 Member Murphy opined that, from his perspective, the different in LDR-1 and LDR2 was 749 that LDR-2 allowed smaller lots.While the staff report suggested 550% as a good starting 750 discussion point, Member Murphy opined he could feel comfortable with 50%.Member 751 Murphy stated that part of the situation was that you were buying into that percentage; 752 you had the choice of more green space or more hard surface for the home’s footprint. 753 Particularly today, Member Murphy noted that it was common for at least a two-car 754 garage and 2-stall car width driveway and garage space.If a prospective homeowner 755 wanted something closer to 50% versus 30%, Member Murphy noted it would impact that 756 first floor footprint accordingly. 757 Member Bull asked staff if they had researched any comparables to communities around 758 Roseville. 759 Mr. Lloyd responded that staff hadn’t actually looked at surrounding communities; but in 760 terms of provision, advised it would be difficult to find anyway as lot size requirements 761