2016-11-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Murphy sought clarification from Mr. Paschke on how interior setbacks were 99 referenced related to adjacencies to all other districts and between side yards and rear 100 yard setbacks, specifically how they concerned the City Council and resulting in staff’ 101 recommendation for 50% building height minimums. 102 Mr. Paschke advised that the intent was to be universal, even though he wasn’t sure if 103 Roseville experienced a high concentration of residential lots redeveloped adjacent to 104 HDR Districts. 105 Related to the side yard, Member Kimble asked if an applicant could return with a 106 Conditional Use application if it was determined it was needed for their proposal to be 107 considered. 108 Mr. Paschke referenced language (Attachment E, page 1, footnote a), “The city may 109 require a greater or lesser setback based on surrounding land uses.” Mr. Paschke 110 advised this wouldn’t necessarily require the proposal to apply for a Conditional Use, as 111 staff or the City Council would work with those individuals to establish a more appropriate 112 setback than prescribed in code. In order to avoid confusion, Mr. Paschke noted that 113 language was separated out, or could be stricken by adding another row related to 114 adjacency as appropriate for interior versus requiring an additional 10’. 115 If those changes were made, Member Kimble asked Mr. Paschke to define how that 116 would impact the recent Good Samaritan proposal. 117 Mr. Paschke responded that the Good Samaritan proposal had met all requirements 118 under HDR-1 Districts, other than their deviation for a slight increase in density of 119 units/acre, falling under the Conditional Use provision. 120 Member Kimble asked if staff reviewed past proposals with developers to determine the 121 feasibility of those projects. 122 Mr. Paschke advised that staff had stayed in contact with the Good Samaritan 123 developers, opining he wasn’t aware of any concerns they had with these recommended 124 text amendments, which would allow them to move forward with their initial proposal and 125 additional units per acre. Mr. Paschke noted there weren’t many other HDR projects in 126 Roseville to-date, other than several senior living and assisted living projects, but not 127 specifically HDR that would allow sufficient analysis. Mr. Paschke opined that in some 128 cases, consideration was needed from the standpoint of their impact on adjacent uses 129 allowing building proportions and setbacks as height increased, providing built-in 130 flexibility. Mr. Paschke further noted that the Conditional Use process didn’t close the 131 door on certain provisions, but provided an added benefit to the proposal to allow that 132 flexibility, a good thing in today’s market. 133 Member Kimble asked if there was any rational in the table showing maximum building 134 heights at 45’, 45’ or 65’, but commercial was shown as 40’ (Attachment E, Commercial 135 Business standards). 136 Member Gitzen referenced Table 1004-06 (page 2) and heights shown at 35’ and 137 maximum of 45’, while maximum height on Attachment D states that height over 45’ 138 requires a Conditional Use. In reading that provision, Member Gitzen noted that prior to 139 that, the maximum height was 65’ and asked why a building between 45’ and 65’ wouldn’t 140 fall within that original maximum height. 141 Mr. Paschke responded that based on internal staff discussion and no matter the 142 Conditional use process, it came to a point if impacts were too great for the HDR-1 143 District and the comfort level was better at 65’ rather than 45’ or the previous maximum 144 height, staff would not be opposed as long as the Conditional Use addressed height and 145 shadow impacts of certain uses. 146 Member Gitzen noted current language reads 45’ and opined it could even go up to 95’, 147 which would not be realistic. 148 Mr. Paschke stated he was fine with assigning a cap to that modification, such as 149 “maximum building height over 45’ and up to 65’ requires a Conditional Use in HDR-1 150 Districts.” 151