2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A Councilmember Willmus stated that he shared some of those concerns, but questioned staff ЊЉБ as to the date the application was received compared to when the City Council approved the ЊЉВ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance. ЊЊЉ Mr. Paschke clarified that the PUD ordinance was approved after receipt of this application; ЊЊЊ and while the city could request that the developer go through the PUD process, he ЊЊЋ questioned if the project would actually qualify. ЊЊЌ Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee's statements, and those ЊЊЍ made by Councilmember Etten earlier; and noted that his concern wasn't the proposed project ЊЊЎ in front of him but the fact the City Council needed to be cognizant of what could be the ЊЊЏ most intense use on that site, especially with HDR-2 zoning designation. ЊЊА If the project were to return under the PUD ordinance, Councilmember Etten asked staff if ЊЊБ the applicant's proposed 50% versus 75% to 80% impervious coverage would work in favor ЊЊВ of the applicant. ЊЋЉ Mr. Paschke advised that staff would need to review all PUD criteria to see what the ЊЋЊ developer was bringing to the table, not just specific to density, but if they could actually ЊЋЋ achieve the bar to begin the PUD process, which was long and drawn out, and had strict ЊЋЌ limitations on who could come forward to begin that process for a PUD on any site, ЊЋЍ including this one. ЊЋЎ Councilmember Etten opined this was an important development for the community, and ЊЋЏ something currently lacking, since a lot of multi-family senior housing was available in ЊЋА Roseville, but not from an affordable standpoint. With HRD-2 zoning on this site and its ЊЋБ proximity abutting LDR on two sides, Councilmember Etten reiterated his concern in ЊЋВ rezoning the property. ЊЌЉ Mayor Roe noted the current designation in the Zoning Table of Uses with two distinct ЊЌЊ categories with varying characteristics for each: group living and family living with a certain ЊЌЋ number of units. Mayor Roe referenced discussion during the time of the proposed ЊЌЌ development on County Road B and Cleveland Avenue and traditional rental property with a ЊЌЍ lower number of larger units and more amenities. Mayor Roe suggested looking at that type ЊЌЎ of scenario and two types of living categories for this type of application as well: traditional ЊЌЏ family living rental units in HDR and a second category for group living that is more specific ЊЌА and regulated such as this; with a line added to the Table of uses for property standards ЊЌБ distinguishing maximum density for each category. Mayor Roe noted this would allow for ЊЌВ more site-specific consideration for either type of category if applicable, and may prove an ЊЍЉ easier and quicker solution than the PUD process. ЊЍЊ Councilmember McGehee stated her opposition to such a solution, since it would become ЊЍЋ applicable across the board based on the table already existing. Councilmember McGehee ЊЍЌ opined that this development proposal was a good fit for the PUD process; and if the PUD ЊЍЍ ordinance recently adopted was already found to have insufficient flexibility to consider a ЊЍЎ project such as this, a text amendment to the PUD ordinance seemed a simpler thing to ЊЍЏ accomplish, allowing the City Council to make a determination on this and future ЊЍА cases. Councilmember McGehee noted the support for this type of project in the community, ЊЍБ but also noted the need for conditions applicable to a 62-unit development but not applicable ЊЍВ citywide; addressing this specific site without changing the rules for the entire community. ЊЎЉ