2016-10-05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

was going to be a large redevelopment site with multiple and ancillary uses, or with 205 unique uses that proved creative design-site that didn’t necessarily fit the city’s standard 206 template. In the case of the Good Samaritan proposal for an HDR-residential use on an 207 HDR designated site, Ms. Collins noted the only problem with their application was their 208 proposed number of units. In that case, Ms. Collins noted the proposal was just outside 209 the maximum number of units allowed with that zoning designation, and shouldn’t require 210 the lengthy PUD process for such a minor deviation. Ms. Collins noted if instead it had 211 been a large redevelopment site with multiple and ancillary uses, the PUD process could 212 provide leverage for creative design in exchange for things not fitting within that 213 underlying code. 214 Specific to the corner lot setback discussion, Chair Boguszewski referenced the August 215 15, 2016 City Council meeting at which one Councilmember stated a primary area of 216 concern was with corner lot situations with 20’ setbacks versus other street frontage of 217 30’. 218 Mr. Paschke noted mention was made during the City Council discussion; however, he 219 noted the concern didn’t make it into the proposed changes being advocated by the 220 majority, nor did it come forward as direction to city staff to address corner lot setbacks. 221 Mr. Paschke reiterated his previous comments related to design standards and potential 222 conflict in setback revisions with those city code provisions. 223 Chair Boguszewski asked how these text amendments would be addressed in the 224 upcoming comprehensive plan update. 225 Mr. Paschke noted it was intentional that there were no numbers provided in the 226 comprehensive plan, with distances not addressed other than in general terms and as 227 rationale in separating districts without much specificity. 228 With current design standards for urban development up to the lot lines, Chair 229 Boguszewski noted this is another example in HDR of shallower and sloped back heights 230 within business areas. 231 Mr. Paschke noted there was still the requirement for new construction to provide a street 232 presence for multi-family uses and corner lots as well, to keep them near streets. 233 However, Mr. Paschke advised these text amendments were intended to address 234 surrounding properties for interior setback situations to provide separation from those 235 uses from side and rear yards in LDR-1, LRD-2 or MDR designated zones. Mr. Paschke 236 noted this didn’t typically address smaller lots, only fairly large lots; and provided flexibility 237 in addition to addressing design standards. 238 For those HDR developments already in place in Roseville, Chair Boguszewski asked 239 how many would meet these text amendments versus being out of compliance from their 240 original designs under that proposed new language. 241 Mr. Paschke noted that would require research of when those were constructed, but with 242 a majority of multi-family housing being constructed in the 1980’s, and some even before 243 then; and with city code dating back to 1995 or later, he was unable to provide an 244 accurate picture without that further research. Mr. Paschke further noted there were a 245 number of different residential districts at that time, making it further difficult for staff to 246 determine it without a thorough review of building permits, and whether or not building 247 height was a component at that time if only a 20’ to 30’ setback was required. Mr. 248 Paschke noted the last building under this category was the Lexington Apartment 249 complex dating to 1989, with no other developments other than senior housing projects 250 that were required to meet different standards whether under PUD’s or under standard 251 city code provisions. 252 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that staff didn’t make 253 comparisons with other metropolitan suburbs related to this issue. However, Mr. Paschke 254 advised that most cities choose a process specific to their community, some with 255 standard setbacks for that area or universal for single-family uses. However, for multi- 256 family and commercial districts, Mr. Paschke noted those standards vary from community 257