2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Request For Planning Commission Action Agenda Date: 10/05/16 Public Hearings Agenda Item: 5a Item Description: Public hearing regarding proposed Text Amendments to Chapter 1004 of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance. B Њ ACKGROUND On May 23, 2016, the Roseville City Council denied a request by Good Samaritan Society Ћ to change the zoning of 1415 County Road B from High Density Residential-1 (HDR-1) to Ќ High Density Residential-2 (HDR-2) to allow a 62-unit, 3-story senior living-facility to Ѝ be built on the subject property. This denial prompted the Planning Division to review Ў the Zoning Code to determine possible ways to address Council’s concerns pertaining to Џ density, building height, and building setbacks for projects proposed adjacent to А residential areas zoned low-density (see Attachment A). Б On July 25, 2016, the Planning Division presented its thoughts and ideas to address the В concerns expressed by the Council at the May 23 meeting. Specifically, the Division ЊЉ recommended that a conditional use (CU) process be established in the HDR-1 and ЊЊ HDR-2 districts to address density concerns. The Division also recommended against ЊЋ amending the recently adopted Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance. The ЊЌ Council agreed amending the PUD ordinance was not the best route and directed the ЊЍ Planning Division to look into other ways to address building height and setback ЊЎ requirements for projects adjacent to residential areas zoned low-density (see ЊЏ Attachment B). ЊА On August 15, 2016, the Planning Division sought final direction from the City Council ЊБ regarding HDR-1 and HDR-2. In its proposal, the Planning Division continued to ЊВ recommend using the CU to address density increases in the HDR-1; to establish density ЋЉ limits in the HDR-2; and to address building height in both HDR-1 and 2. While ЋЊ Council supported staff’s recommendations, they also sought further clarity and ЋЋ uniformity on side- and rear-yard building setbacks in all zoning districts adjacent to ЋЌ LDR and MDR districts (see Attachment C). ЋЍ The Planning Division spent considerable time discussing an appropriate amendment ЋЎ process to address Council concerns. In the end, the Division landed on amendments to ЋЏ Table 1004-6, Table 1005-2, Table 1005-3, and Table 1005-4, which would make it ЋА possible for the CU process to address most of the Council’s concerns. Specifically, the ЋБ CU process affords the City greater flexibility to review and, if needed, place conditions ЋВ on density, building height, and setbacks to mitigate negative impacts to the ЌЉ surrounding area. ЌЊ CAC ЌЋ ODEMENDMENTONSIDERATIONS D ЌЌ ENSITY Regarding density, the Planning Division discussed a few possible options that would ЌЍ afford increased density in the HDR-1 districts, establish a base density, and help ЌЎ manage density in the HDR-2 districts. The proposal the Division brought forward ЌЏ supports using the CU process to allow density increases from 24 to 36 units per acre in ЌА the HDR-1 district and to allow projects with more than 36 units per acre to be built in ЌБ the HDR-2 district (see Table 1004-6). ЌВ PROJ0039_TextAmendments_100516 Page 1 of 6