Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment A <br />discussion than with other potential paths (e.g. PUD process or his suggested text <br />ЋЌЎ <br />amendment) and therefore would oppose the motion. <br />ЋЌЏ <br />Councilmember Etten stated he was in agreement with Mayor Roe. While supporting the <br />ЋЌА <br />reasons stated for denial, Councilmember Etten opined that Mr. Paschke's point about the <br />ЋЌБ <br />maximum potential density that could develop and Mayor Roe's point that if this <br />ЋЌВ <br />development proposal fell through, the City could move to reinstate HDR-1 zoning, it was <br />ЋЍЉ <br />sufficient for him to noted that this was such an important project for Roseville, he would <br />ЋЍЊ <br />oppose the motion to deny. <br />ЋЍЋ <br />Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the motion to deny in the hopes that the city <br />ЋЍЌ <br />would work with the developer to come up with a solution to make the project work. <br />ЋЍЍ <br />Councilmember Laliberte stated that this ongoing discussion had swayed her and she would <br />ЋЍЎ <br />oppose the motion to deny. At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to her rationale in <br />ЋЍЏ <br />doing so, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the fear factor seemed to be a potential for 250 <br />ЋЍА <br />units, creating her original hesitation in supporting the project; and since it appeared not to be <br />ЋЍБ <br />feasible, the overall need for and nature of this particular project is important to the <br />ЋЍВ <br />community. <br />ЋЎЉ <br />Roll Call <br />ЋЎЊ <br />Ayes: <br />Willmus and McGehee. <br />ЋЎЋ <br />Nays: <br />Laliberte, Etten, and Roe. <br />ЋЎЌ <br />Motion failed <br />. <br />ЋЎЍ <br />Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. ___ (Attachment G) <br />ЋЎЎ <br />entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code, Changing the <br />ЋЎЏ <br />Zoning Designation of Certain Real Property;" rezoning the property addressed at <br />ЋЎА <br />1415 County Road B from HDR-1 to HDR-2 District. <br />ЋЎБ <br />Councilmember Etten noted that he would appreciate other ways to make the project work <br />ЋЎВ <br />outside rezoning, he had been convinced that the parcel was small enough that the feared 250 <br />ЋЏЉ <br />units could not be developed, negating that potential great negative as being unrealistic given <br />ЋЏЊ <br />current code restraints. <br />ЋЏЋ <br />Councilmember Willmus expressed his concern with the overall height of the proposed <br />ЋЏЌ <br />building to those adjacent single-family parcels; and stated his continued opposition to the <br />ЋЏЍ <br />rezoning request. Had the rezoning request not been successful, Councilmember Willmus <br />ЋЏЎ <br />opined that the PUD process could have sufficed, with little effort on the city's <br />ЋЏЏ <br />part. Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council was being shortsighted and <br />ЋЏА <br />taking the easy road out especially with long-term implications for the area in doing so. <br />ЋЏБ <br />Councilmember Laliberte asked Councilmember Willmus what path he saw going forward in <br />ЋЏВ <br />proposing the PUD process at this stage. <br />ЋАЉ <br />Councilmember Willmus stated his preference to revisit the PUD ordinance. Councilmember <br />ЋАЊ <br />Willmus stated that he had no issue with the developer's proposed 62 units; but explained that <br />ЋАЋ <br />his issue was that potential project that could occur. Councilmember Willmus noted that he <br />ЋАЌ <br />wasn't implying that this developer is going to change their proposal, but noted that they <br />ЋАЍ <br /> <br />