2016-06-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Page 8 Ayes: 7 351 Nays: 0 352 Motion carried 353 c.PLANNING FILE 16-006 354 Request by Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society to REZONE 1415 County 355 Road B from High Density Residential-1 District to High Density Residential-2 356 District to afford more flexible design and an increase in unit density 357 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PLANNING FILE 16-006 at 7:42p.m. 358 City Planner Thomas Paschkereviewed the request as detailed in the staff report and 359 attachments dated May 4, 2016 and rationale for suggested changes. 360 Mr. Paschke reported that staff had not accepted the initial application for this project 361 pending a traffic study, now available and included in meeting packet materials.Mr. 362 Paschkenoted that the study indicated that this proposed project density for the site and 363 development project, as well as maximizing the site for other potential HDR-2 uses that 364 may create a greater number of units per acre within code requirements were all possible 365 without creating any major impacts to the road network system.From that standpoint, Mr. 366 Paschkeadvised that staff could therefore support the project and recommended its 367 approval, even if a development proposal came forward at greater density allowed by 368 code for HDR-2 if and when the zoning change is approved.Mr. Paschke advised that if 369 there had been any major impacts or concerns as a result of the traffic study or from 370 Ramsey County, staff may have changed their recommendation for approval, since once 371 a parcel was rezoned it was difficult to undo.Mr. Paschke noted that the requested 372 zoning change was consistent with the comprehensive plan for the parcel designated for 373 high density, with the city only having two divisions for higher or lower density and 374 different design standards applying to each accordingly. 375 With Chair Boguszewski noting there was no upper limit on HDR-2, Mr. Paschke clarified 376 that those limits would be through the design standards and maximum height allowances 377 built into zoning code and thereby limiting how many units based on design standards 378 and lot amenities.Mr. Paschke noted that the traffic study considered a maximum 379 scenario of 250 units, but when other design elements and standards in code are applied, 380 that high of a density would be difficult for any project to achieve. 381 Chair Boguszewski opined that underlying zoning isn’t necessarily tied to this proposed 382 project, but if a future or alternate project came forward, with zoning staying with the land, 383 there was the potential for a much larger and denser development. 384 Mr. Paschke reiterated that there could be more units, but from his perspective, it would 385 be difficult to achieve anywhere near 250 units; and clarified that the current project 386 prompting this rezoning request was proposed for 62 units. 387 Discussion ensued as to the physical location of the proposed project; and zoning and 388 density allowances of other multi-family complexes in the immediate area (e.g. Rose Mall 389 Apartments). 390 Chair Boguszewski asked staff to display an illustrative view of the hypothesized 391 elevation of the proposed project for public viewing of the massing that could occur with 392 just 62 units as proposed. 393 Mr. Paschke noted that the proposed project site plan was predicated on and 394 incorporated zoning for placement of the building under the city’s urban design and green 395 space code requirements seeking a greater separation from adjacent residential uses 396 and moving the building footprint closer to a busy road.Mr. Paschke noted that the 397 elevations as displayed were for a three-story structure with underground parking. 398 MemberMurphy pointed out, as recognized by Chair Boguszewski, that the zoning 399 request was separate and distinct from this project. 400