Laserfiche WebLink
RCA Attachment E <br />wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ <br />aźƓǒƷĻƭΑ‘ĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ <br />tğŭĻЋ <br />41 a. From the Public: Public comment pertaining to general land use issues not on this <br />42 agenda, including the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. <br />43 <br />44 None. <br />45 <br />46 b. From the Commission or Staff: Information about assorted business not already on <br />47 this agenda, including a brief update on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update <br />48 process. <br />49 <br />50 None. <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 6. Public Hearing <br />54 <br />55 a. Request to Allow Residential Density Greater Than 24 Dwelling Units Per Acre <br />56 As A Conditional Use In Support Of A Proposed Apartment Project At 1415 <br />57 County Road B (PF22-012) <br />58 Chair Kimble opened the public hearing for PF22-012 at approximately 6:34 p.m. and <br />59 reported on the purpose and process of a public hearing. She advised this item will be <br />60 before the City Council on November 28, 2022. <br />61 <br />62 Senior Planner Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated <br />63 November 2, 2022. <br />64 <br />65 Member McGehee inquired on line 32-33, it seems like they are predicating them on <br />66 a highly refined planned and she wondered how staff defined that and whether that is <br />67 specific to this or a term staff uses more frequently. <br />68 <br />69 Mr. Lloyd explained that is only intending to reflect the fact that if 32 units per acre <br />70 was approved, that would yield a total of 72 units on this site. He was referring to it <br />71 as being more refined because the applicant has gone beyond that sort of basic plan of <br />72 strictly speaking of what the applicant is asking for, that addition of density, and <br />73 showing their ultimate proposed development, utilizing the density bonus that is <br />74 available through the structure in the parking stalls. It has more details than <br />75 necessary for reviewing the application and what he was trying to suggest in his <br />76 language. <br />77 <br />78 Member McGehee asked what are the design issues staff seems to have. <br />79 <br />80 Mr. Lloyd reviewed on the map some of the issues that do not meet the Zoning Code <br />81 requirements. He indicated some of these are design considerations that have not <br />82 been met. <br />83 <br />84 Member McGehee thought this is one of the nicer plans she has seen and did not <br />85 think that making it fit into an exact box is going to enhance it. She thought the <br />86 architects in this case have a nice-looking building that looks a little different than <br />87 anything else Roseville has. She wondered how much flexibility the City is willing to <br />Page 1 of 13 <br /> <br />