CC_Minutes_2016_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 Page 9 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 12;” at the City Council meeting of November 28, 2016. Roll Call Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe. Nays: None. 10.General Ordinances for Adoption a.Consider Text Amendments to Roseville City Code, Chapter 1004 and 1005 pertaining to High Density Residential (PROJ0039) City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the RCA as detailed; and referenced a bench handout as part of the report consisting of draft Planning Commission meeting minutes from October 5, 2016 when they deliberated these text amend- ments and provided their recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Paschke not- ed one slight change made by the Commission t their meeting as reflected in their meeting minutes, that building height above 45’ but less than 65’ be included for HDR-1 and anything above 65’ requiring a Conditional Use. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke displayed the proposed changes in out- lined in Attachment C. Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Paschke for the language clarifi- cations, specifically residential Low Density (LDR) and Medium Density residen- tial (MDR). However, Mayor Roe asked if that caused the high density residen- tial (HDR) to be too specific by calling out the LDR-1, LDR-2, and MDR adja- cencies, or if the intent was to consider use versus density zoning. City Planner Paschke stated staff’s agreement with recommended language spe- cific to zoning, noting that the key to business districts and their use didn’t often impact residential uses; but if a residential zoning designation is adjacent to HDR, that use didn’t impact the adjacent HDR. Mr. Paschke noted this left only three other zones under residential, and therefore, it made sense to spell that out accord- ingly rather than also doing so in the business districts. As noted by Mayor Roe, City Planner Paschke agreed that it was very infrequent that there would be HDR next to single-family uses without those single family uses being zoned as such. Referencing Table 1004-06 of Attachment C (page 2), Councilmember Etten not- ed previous City Council discussion related to HDR-1 and Multi-family uses, and interior setbacks of 20’ or 50%. Under HDR-2 designations, Councilmember Et- ten noted that remained at 10’ and asked why both were not both at 20’ or 50%, whichever is greater.