2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A could market this parcel as HDR-2 without developing their proposed project; and there ЋАЎ would be nothing the city could do. ЋАЏ Councilmember McGehee stated her only concern was that if the PUD ordinance is so ЋАА restrictive it can't be used to facilitate a project like this that was sorely needed in Roseville ЋАБ and serving the population needing this type of housing at this favorable location, then ЋАВ something was wrong with that PUD ordinance. Councilmember McGehee agreed with ЋБЉ Councilmember Willmus that the City Council was being shortsighted. ЋБЊ For clarification purposes, and for the benefit of Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember ЋБЋ Etten identified several HDR-2 areas in Roseville at this time. Councilmember Etten noted ЋБЌ City Manager Trudgeon's information about the actual 10% increase in units available with ЋБЍ the PUD ordinance process if applicable; and questioned if that was applicable or the more ЋБЎ significant increase of 30% or more in density, that may open the door to other implications, ЋБЏ including through the PUD process. ЋБА Mayor Roe suggested this PUD ordinance discussion be a separate debate outside this ЋББ rezoning request. ЋБВ Mayor Roe noted that a text amendment to the PUD ordinance would require a public ЋВЉ process and public hearing before the Planning Commission followed by the developer ЋВЊ subsequently applying for and staff analyzing that application and then the approval ЋВЋ process. While it may sound simple, Mayor Roe suggested it may not be so given a number ЋВЌ of mitigating factors (e.g. size of property, parking, stormwater management, etc.). Mayor ЋВЍ Roe noted that staff currently has the ability to require greater setbacks given adjacent uses; ЋВЎ and also the City Council has the ability to re-designate zoning back to HDR-1. ЋВЏ Councilmember McGehee opined that this give and take is certainly germane to this rezoning ЋВА request, and that it would be inappropriate for Mayor Roe to push forward the motion and ЋВБ arguing only his point of view. ЋВВ Mayor Roe duly noted Councilmember McGehee's comment; but clarified that the City ЌЉЉ Council is not here to discuss the PUD process, but the motion currently before the body. ЌЉЊ Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not concerned if there were a few extra steps needed ЌЉЋ for the PUD process to evolve; opining that was less a concern for her than doing what was ЌЉЌ right on this parcel. Councilmember Laliberte stated she would vote to pursue the PUD ЌЉЍ process if it resulted in a better product no matter the time required to reach that goal. ЌЉЎ Councilmember Laliberte withdrew her second to the motion. ЌЉЏ Mayor Roe seconded the motion and restated the motion was to approve the rezoning ЌЉА request. ЌЉБ Roll Call ЌЉВ Ayes: Etten and Roe. ЌЊЉ Nays: Willmus, Laliberte and McGehee. ЌЊЊ Motion failed. ЌЊЋ