Laserfiche WebLink
RCA Attachment E <br />wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ <br />aźƓǒƷĻƭΑ‘ĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ <br />tğŭĻЌ <br />88 provide given the architects have a very highly refined plan, which she thought was <br />89 attractive. <br />90 <br />91 Mr. Lloyd explained for better or worse, how much flexibility the City is willing to <br />92 exercise is a different question from how much flexibility or discretion the Zoning <br />93 Code provides. Staff has discussed the plan internally and he has talked about it a bit <br />94 with the applicants and there was discussion on some ideas to deal with that. The <br />95 only alternative so far is to apply for a variance, which still could be done but it is not <br />96 immediately clear how an application to leave the building the way it is without <br />97 forcing it into something else meets the test for the hardship or practical difficulty of <br />98 meeting those requirements that is needed in a variance request. It is not an ideal <br />99 option but is the only path for additional flexibility since the Zoning Code does not <br />100 provide sort of built-in discretion on that. <br />101 <br />102 Member Aspnes asked how much of the parking is underground and how much is <br />103 surface parking and is there a percentage required for the additional twenty-nine <br />104 units. She wondered if there is a ratio of underground parking that was increased to <br />105 accommodate for some percentage of these and is there sufficient parking either <br />106 within this L or underground so that guest and resident parking does not spill into the <br />107 neighborhood. <br />108 <br />109 Mr. Lloyd indicated he did not know the direct answer regarding how many parking <br />110 stalls are underground and above ground and not something he spent time reviewing <br />111 as a part of this application. Those are more of the details that would be attended to <br />112 with a permit application to verify they have structured enough of them to justify the <br />113 density bonus and number of units that they are proposing. He explained he has <br />114 worked with the applicants on a previous version of the plan and it is very similar to <br />115 him. <br />116 <br />117 Chair Kimble asked if the developer required to hold an open house. <br />118 <br />119 Mr. Lloyd explained an open house was not required for this application. <br />120 <br />121 Chair Kimble inquired if staff knew what the density per acre is on the adjacent <br />122 apartment buildings that are there. <br />123 <br />124 Mr. Lloyd explained he did not look at that. He noted in the maximum zoning in <br />125 many of RosevilleÓs Zoning Districts for a long time has been 24 units an acre and he <br />126 expected it to be close to that. <br />127 <br />128 Member Kruzel hope there was some good considerations in this plan for crosswalks <br />129 and fixing that whole area through there for pedestrians and bicyclists. She thought <br />130 there needed to be a focus on foot traffic. <br />131 <br />132 Mr. Craig Gottschalk, representing Firm Ground Architects and the Ownership <br />133 Group, explained there are currently ninety stall slated for the garage and 139 total <br />134 parking spots. He reviewed the parking plans with the Commission. <br />Page 2 of 13 <br /> <br />