2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Extract of the July 25, 2016 Roseville City Council Meeting Minutes a.Discussion Regarding High Density Residential (HDR) Housing Districts and the Planned Unit Development (PUD)Process (PROJ0039) Mayor Roe introduced this item and recognized City Planner Thomas Paschke for up update based on past discussions and direction to staff from the City Council. As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Paschke reviewed the current HDR and PUD processes and issues, and outlined several potential options for consideration by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council (page 2, lines 31-34). Mr. Paschke advised that staff felt these revisions addressed the two areas of concern and allowed more flexibility in HDR-1 and HDR-2 to address those issues. Specific to the PUD issue and possible amendment to increase density, Mr. Paschke noted lines 36 – 86 addressed staff’s analysis related to senior and other housing. Mr. Paschke cautioned that staff thought this may have intended consequences, and therefore at this time, could not support revisions as noted. Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins noted the purpose of tonight’s discussion was to gather the objectives and outcomes the City Council would like to see for HDR proposals (e.g. senior housing classifications as lower impacts); and whether they thought the Conditional Use (CU) process addressed any and all uses, if done on a case by case review. As mentioned by Mr. Paschke, Ms. Collins noted the proposed PUD text amendment pending Planning Commission review and recommendation and City Council approval that would include density language and increase it to 30%. However, Ms. Collins noted this also involved the acreage component that also may need amending, but advised staff was seeking which option the City Council found more to accomplish the desired outcomes it was seeking (from 24 to 36 units as outlined in the proposed draft at 50% versus 30%). Assuming the CU allow up to 50%, Ms. Collins noted it could also be a percentage not necessarily that high, but subject to discussion by the City Council to address mitigation and cost versus benefit analyses. Mr. Paschke agreed, noting that a subsequent traffic study and case by case review during the CU process may determine that an increase up to 36 units may not work, while something in between may be more preferable and thus recommended rather than the maximum number of units per acre. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke confirmed the maximum building height would remain the same. Specific to the Good Samaritan proposal and rezoning request that brought this discussion forward, Councilmember Willmus advised his concern was whether or not that was the highest and best use for those parcels. Councilmember Willmus stated he still struggled with that, and therefore wasn’t sure if staff’s recommendation to move from 24 to 36 units per acre sufficed, without also addressing a maximum building height and design considerations. For reference, Councilmember Willmus stated he wasn’t interested in seeing a duplication of the situation at 6800 Xerxes Avenue in Edina, MN; with single-family residential use on one side of the street and 65’ to 70’ buildings directly across the street. Councilmember Willmus noted the impacts for solar access for those single-family properties; stating the real issue for