CCP 08222022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

84 The relevant objections to the proposal stem primarily from three subject areas: the feeling that the 85 immediate neighborhood should remain exclusively detached homes; the opinion that the broader 86 neighborhood already includes too much attached and multifamily housing; and the concern that new 87 development would worsen existing drainage issues in the area. Roseville’s Engineering staff has been 88 working with neighborhood residents to address existing storm water issues and, in the attached memo, 89 the City Engineer notes the proposed development likely would not worsen the problem nor is it 90 positioned such that its storm water management BMPs can help address the existing issues. With 91 respect to the concerns over residential densities in the area, there are medium-and high-density 92 dwellings within about a quarter-mile of the site in both directions along Old Highway 8, but it is 93 important not to conflate the proposed development with townhomes and apartments. In contrast with 94 these more dense developments, this proposal represents a low-density development type, most similar 95 to the duplexes and twin homes just 600 feet from the site, which are well below the eight-dwellings- 96 per-acre permitted in the LDR district. 97 P OLICY O BJECTIVES 98 99 and retains a diverse mix of people, family types, economic statuses,ages,and so on. 100 Explore opportunities to encourage smaller housing units, 101 102 demographics of the City), and opportunities to address the lack of housing in the “missing 103 middle” styles. 104 During the City Council’s review of the proposal at its July 25 meeting, a motion was made to table 105 consideration of the proposed plat in order to prepare an interim ordinance (i.e., a moratorium) for 106 consideration at the next Council meeting. The purpose of the moratoriumwas not fully clear to staff. 107 While this motion failed for lack of a second, a motion to table to allow further consideration of the 108 request did pass 3-2. Staff was not provided specific direction in terms of additional information or 109 research needed. Planning Division staff does wish to identify some consequences should there remain 110 interest in pursuing a moratorium or any action related to revisiting zoning code changes related to LDR 111 dimensional standards and/or permitted housing types: 112 The City spent nearly all of 2021 and $60,000 working on the Phase 1 zoning code updates. At 113 the end of this process, the Planning Commission and City Council both voted unanimously to 114 approve the updated zoning provisions that included permitting two-family homes in the LDR 115 districtand the dimensional standards applied to this proposed plat. 116 Reconsidering the approved Phase 1 updates would cause the current work on the Phase 2 117 updates to stop since much of the Phase 2 updates are impacted by the Phase 1 updates. 118 Depending on the Council’s direction, Comprehensive Plan elements may need to be revisited, 119 which could require further Metropolitan Council review and approval. 120 All of the above have unknown timeline and monetary impacts the Council may want to 121 consider. 122 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 123 Acquisition of park dedication funds. Refer to DRC comments in Attachment E. 7a RCA.docx Page 4 of 5