My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 11282022
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2022
>
CCP 11282022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/22/2022 1:25:51 PM
Creation date
11/22/2022 1:25:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
11/28/2022
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
338
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 0±®¯®² « 3´¬¬ ±¸ <br />2 The site was originally developed in 1958 as a nursing home facility that was ultimately demolished in <br />3 2010. Since that time the site has remained vacant. The applicant proposes to develop a new apartment <br />4 facility at a residential density greater than 24 dwelling units per acre under a provision adopted among <br />5 the Phase 1 zoning code updates in November 2021 allowing residential density up to 36 dwelling units <br />6 per acre to be reviewed and approved as a conditional usein the HDR district. Illustrations and other <br />7 information about the proposed development are included with this RCA in Attachment C. <br />8 Prior to the November 2021 zoning update, the Zoning Code and Zoning Map included an HDR-1 <br />9 district (permitting up to 24 units per acre) and an HDR-2 district (with no established density limit). <br />10 While all parcels guided in the comprehensive plan for high-density residential development were <br />11 initially zoned HDR-1, the HDR-2 district was intended to provide an opportunity for the City to <br />12 facilitate residential developments greater than 24 units per acre through rezoning requests. In practice, <br />13 however, no such rezoning requests were ever approved. The primary reasons for denial were centered <br />14 in concerns the site could be developed in any way permitted in the HDR-2 district because the rezoning <br />15 action could not include conditions that the proposed development be implemented. Therefore, among <br />16 other changes, the November 2021 zoning update consolidated the HDR-1 and HDR-2 districts into a <br />17 single HDR district and allowed greater density as a conditional use, so as to ensure ability to secure <br />18 approval of densities up to 36 units per acre as permitted by the Comprehensive Plan. In this way, the <br />19 standard permitted density would still be limited to 24 units per acre but the City Council could facilitate <br />20 developments with greater density on a case-by-case basis with the greater certainty and control <br />21 provided by the conditional use review and approval process. <br />22 The conditional use process can facilitate up to 36 dwelling units per acre, which would yield 72 units <br />23 on the two acre subject site, and the narrow scope of the present application is approval of this <br />24 maximum standard density of 36 dwelling units per acre. Given approval of the 36 units per acre <br />25 density, the applicant proposes to develop 86 dwellings in accordance with the provisions of Zoning <br />26 Code §1019.10 (Bonuses). This section incentivizes the use of structured parking instead of unsheltered, <br />27 surface parking stalls by providing a density bonus; if a proposed development provides structured <br />28 parking for at least half of the required stalls, the development can earn a bonus of up to 20% greater <br />29 density than otherwise allowed on the site. The density bonus has been part of Roseville’s zoning code <br />30 since December 2010 and it has been achieved on other permitted developments over the past dozen <br />31 years, but this is the first time the density bonus for structured parking would be utilized in conjunction <br />32 with the conditional use provisions and revised setback requirements of the consolidated HDR district. <br />33 With the necessary amount of structured parking, the two-acre subject parcel would inherently permit <br />34 the development of up to 57 units on this site (i.e., at a density exceeding the nominal density limit of 24 <br />35 units per acre) without the need for a conditional use approval. Because the applicant has put alot of <br />36 effort in developing highly refined plans, they have been able to demonstrate their ability to achieve the <br />37 density bonus. Therefore, the proposed 86-unit development represents up to 29 dwelling units beyond <br />38 what could be developed by right on the property if the conditional use request is approved. <br />39 When exercising the “quasi-judicial” authority on conditional use requests the role of the City is to <br />40 determine the facts associated with a particular proposal and apply those facts to the legal standards <br />41 contained in the ordinance and relevant state law. In general, if the facts indicate the application meets <br />42 the relevant legal standards and will not compromise the public health, safety,and general welfare, then <br />43 the applicant is likely entitled to the approval. The City is, however, able to add conditions to <br />44 conditional useapprovals to ensure that potentialimpacts to parks, schools, roads, storm sewers, and <br />45 other public infrastructure on and around the subject property are adequately addressed. <br />7e RCA.docx <br />Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.