2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C Extract of the August 15, 2016 Roseville City Council Meeting Minutes b.Discussion Regarding High Density Residential (HDR) Housing Districts and the Planned Unit Development PUD) Process Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins provided an update, based on past City Council discussions, on text amendments for HDR-1 and HDR-2 dimensional standards, density greater than 24 units per acre, adjacencies to other land uses, building height, and setbacks. City Planner Thomas Paschke referenced the RCA seeking feedback on staff’s broader look at other district setbacks and dimensional standards as adopted prior to and in the 2010 zoning code changes (Attachment C). Mr. Paschke further referenced page 2 of the RCA specific to density increases and possible building heights addressed as conditional uses. Additional information was provided on specific multi-family housing units, their zoning, number of units per acre and specific addresses for HDR-1 and HDR-2 as well as several Community Business (CB) zoned areas. Discussion included 167 total sites shown with approximately 20% to 30% of those currently pre-existing nonconforming in general. From his perspective, Councilmember Willmus opined that, as the city seeks to increase density per acre, it seemed out of character with what the city had done over time, and asked that the City Council note that. At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Collins confirmed that all privately-owned condos were included in the overall HDR count of 167 sites. Councilmember Laliberte asked Ms. Collins to provide a list of all 167 parcels in list form in addition to their location via maps. Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for the map in the packet detail showing the HDR-1 and HDR-2 locations in proximity to single- family residential uses. With many things already having come off the table through design-forward requirements as an example, Councilmember McGehee asked what result staff was seeking from this discussion. From her perspective, Councilmember McGehee opined that some aspects of PUD were not looking for greater density, but precluding some interesting design possibilities and flexibility. Councilmember McGehee stated she had always questioned the reality of setbacks (e.g. balconies not being included). Councilmember McGehee opined there were several issues she’d like to address, but she wasn’t sure if they were necessarily specific to the direction staff was seeking. Mr. Paschke clarified that balconies were typically setback from building foundations under current code provisions. Mayor Roe noted the areas of focus were as outlined in the RCA: greater density per acre, with staff recommending the CU approach, setbacks, adjacency issues, and building forward design. Mayor Roe suggested building forward design seemed more of a comprehensive plan discussion and suggested it be deferred for a more holistic community input process. Mayor Roe suggested further discussion was needed regarding setbacks and adjacencies, as well as unit density being addressed if all other requirements are met.