2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A understanding concerns with future development or redevelopment, Mr. Paschke opined that ЊВЌ it would not be possible to get a density of 250 units on this site even under today's city code, ЊВЍ opining any development would be well below that number of units and may look ЊВЎ dramatically different than this proposed development (e.g. parking and the structure itself), ЊВЏ but still be subject to the same limitations. Mr. Paschke recognized a significant amount of ЊВА fear he was hearing from the City Council about the potential for increased density, but stated ЊВБ he could not see any density as high as the 250-units addressed in one of the traffic study ЊВВ scenarios. ЋЉЉ Councilmember McGehee opined that those residents attending the open house weren't ЋЉЊ thinking long-term or ramifications if this proposed development didn't come to fruition, ЋЉЋ especially if the city was left with a parcel zoned HDR-2 and its implications. ЋЉЌ Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, DENIAL of the HDR-2 rezoning request based on ЋЉЍ the findings that the intensity of such zoning use could result in a greater overall ЋЉЎ density, height and setbacks on that site, making it a concern due to its proximity to ЋЉЏ surrounding single-family properties. ЋЉА Councilmember McGehee spoke to the points made by Councilmember Willmus and in ЋЉБ agreement with them. Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in having the ЋЉВ applicant and city planning staff work on ways to make this type of development work for ЋЊЉ the developer and the city, through some other method than rezoning the parcel to HDR-2. ЋЊЊ Councilmember Laliberte admitted she was struggling with this, but concurred with her ЋЊЋ colleagues: that it was a good proposal and a good addition for Roseville, but created ЋЊЌ discomfort for her in the build forward design standards resulting in a very tall building right ЋЊЍ up along the road. ЋЊЎ Mayor Roe clarified that city code would require that the building be set back 30' from the ЋЊЏ street. ЋЊА Councilmember Laliberte stated she was in favor of a project like this in Roseville, but not ЋЊБ with the potential intensity of use on this parcel in the future. Councilmember Laliberte ЋЊВ stated she was open to other potential scenarios, but in this case, she would support the ЋЋЉ findings in the motion. ЋЋЊ Councilmember Etten asked staff if there was a way to put a maximum on a structure in ЋЋЋ HDR-2 zoning, as it related to underground and/or surface parking. ЋЋЌ Mr. Paschke responded that it would depend on the size of the units and community space ЋЋЍ and other amenities of the facility, all project-dependent. On this particular site, Mr. Paschke ЋЋЎ stated that he could not define a specific maximum density. ЋЋЏ Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to the motion to deny the rezoning request, while ЋЋА understanding the findings and concern about future development or redevelopment on the ЋЋБ parcel if this project doesn't move forward. However, if the project doesn't move forward, ЋЋВ Mayor Roe noted the City still retained the option to change HDR-2 requirements or initiate ЋЌЉ its own rezoning of the property. If the City Council is of the mind that this appears to be a ЋЌЊ solution for this project going forward, but concern remains that some other development ЋЌЋ may push the HDR-2 requirements, there is in the code already a footnote available to help ЋЌЌ mitigate the situation. Mayor Roe stated that he was more uncomfortable with this ЋЌЍ