2009_0511_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

214 De.nsity; and fuiiher opined tha.t it would be appropriate and that he would support tF�at 2i 5 designatian. 216 Commissioner Martinson concurred with Commissioner Best to a certain extent, opining 217 that if Wigh Density was applicable to Midland Gro�e, it migh# also be reasonable on this 2�8 site; and no#ed that the de�eloper had made scale re�isions that were an overall 2�9 improvement from the ariginal proposal. C�mmissioner Martinson observed thai 22� realisticalfy, the City of Rose�ille experienced traffic problems throughout the City, in 221 addition to the region. Commissi�ner Martinson express�d that she had remaining 222 reserva#ior�s about this proposed project and land use designatio�; and opined that she 223 would be mare inclined to support a Medium lJse designatian. 224 Corrtmissioner Boerigter opined #hat, given the densi:ty of the adjacent mulii-family 225 properties, this site seemed appr�priate for High Density designatian; and in aomparisan 226 ta other part of the City transitioning from Low to High Density, this was not an 22� uncommon situation. Commissioner Boerigter further opined that, in looking at the overall 22B pic#ure, the praperty wouldn't probably develop into single-family homes; but seemed 229 more applicable for High Density designation. Commissioner 8oerigter recagnized public 23� camments and concerns; however, was stiil of the opinion that this parcel serves as a 231 transitian for the neighborhood and properties across the street, to be consistent, he was 232 still concerned that ihis project remained of too large a sca]e to this site. 233 Chair Bakeman apined that High De�sity designation was apprapriate, due to the 234 proximi�y of Midland Grove at close to 19 unitslacre; and the ability to limit the maximum. 235 units per acre with the PUD; and that 12 units per acre was not dense enough with z36 Midland Grave's praximity directly adjacent. Chair Bakeman further apined that with the 23� standard street width of 32', she was not concerned about tra�ic volume. Chair Bakeman 238 opined that she was inclined ta support Migh Density designation, and capping that 23� density through PEJD controls. 24o Commissioners 8est and Martinson cancurred. 2�1 Coinmissioner Martinson opined that it made logical sense to change the zoning, with 2�2 Midland Grove immediately adjacent; however, she expressed wariness as to whether 243 the Pl1D was a sound way to limii density. 244 Ayes: 4(Boerigter; Best; Martinson; Bakeman) 245 N.ays: 3(Doherty; Wozniak; Gottfried) 246 Motion carried. 247 MOTION (9.2) 2aa Member Bakeman mo�red; sec�nded by Member 6est to RECOMEMND APRPOVAL 249 of �.he REZONING af 2025 County Road B from Singie Family Residen.tial {R-1) to 25o Planned Unit De�elopment (PUD), with an underlying zoning of General Residence 251 Distric.t (R-3).. 252 Ay�S: 7 253 Nays: 0 25a Motion carri:ed. 255 MOTION (9.3) 256 Member Bakerrian ma�ed, seconded 6y Member Gottfried to RECOMMEND 257 APPROVAL of the G�N�RAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNI7 �EVELOPNfENT, as 2a� prepared for t�e March 4, 2009 Planning Commissian meeting; subjeet to the 2�9 conditions of Section 9 of the staff report dat�d March 4, 2009; with final appro�a! 26o by the City Couneil considered af#er all conditions ar�d required documenis and 261 permits have been su6mitted for final approrral; w�th those final approvals 2�2 consic�ered as a separate applicatian process. z�3 Commissioner Boerigter questioned the actual concern in making this rezoning change; z�4 noting that it shoufdn't be traffic; the building footprint had been reduced; and nated that 2�5 the current proposal was close to setback requirements and had limifed deviations from 2�� square fooiage requirements. Commissioner Boerigter noied that the building mass coultf