2009_0511_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

21�t Density; and further opined ti�at it would b� appropriate and that f�e waufcf suppor� ihat 215 designation. 216 Comrrtissioner Martinson concurred with Commissioner Best to a ce�tain extent, opining 217 that if HigF� Density was applicable io Midland Grove, it might also be reasonab�e on this 218 site; and noted that t�e developer had made scale re�isions that were an overall 219 improvement from the originaf proposaf. Commissioner Martinsan observed that z2o realistically, ihe City af Roseville experienced traffic problems throughout ti�e City, i� 221 addiiion to the region, Commissioner Mar#inson expressed that she had remaining 222 reservations about this proposed project and land use desigr�ation; and opined that she 223 would be more incfined to su�port a Medium Use de.signation. 22�4 Commissioner Boerigter opined that, given the density of ihe adjacent multi-famify 225 properties, this site seerned appropriate for High �ensi#y designation; and in comparison 226 ta othe� part of the City transitioning fram Low to High Density, this was not an 22r uncomm.on si#uation. Commissioner Boerigier further opFned that, in looking at �he overall 228 pic�ure, the property wouldn't probably develop into single-family homes, but seemed z29 more applicable tor High Density designaiion. Commissioner Bo�rigter recognized publ.ic 23o comments and concerns; however, was still of the opinion that this parcel serves as a z3� transition for the neighborhood and praperties across the street, to be cor�sistent, he was 232 still concerned that this project remained of too large a scale to this si�e, �33 Chair Bakeman opined fhat High Density designation was appropriate, due to ti�e 234 proximity of Midland Grave at cEose io 19 unitslacre; and the ability to lirr�it the maximum 235 unifs per acre with the PUD; and that 12 units per acre was not dense enough with 236 Midland Grov�'s proximity directly adjacent. Ghair Bakernan further apined that with the 23r standard street wi.dth of 32', she was not concerned about traffic volurrie. Chair Bakeman 238 opined that she w�s inclined to support High Density designation, and capping that 239 density through PUD controls. 2�D Commissianers BeSt and IVlartinson conc�rred. 24� Commission�r Martinson opined fhat it made logical sense ta change the zoning, wiih 24z Midland Grove immediately adjacent; however, she expressed wariness as io whether 2�3 the PiJD was a sound way to limit densi#y. 244 Ayes: 4(Boerigter; Best; Martinson; Bakeman} 245 Nays: 3(Doherty; Wozniak; Gottfried} 246 Motion carried. 2�7 MOTiOfV (9.2) 248 Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Best to RECOM�MfVD APRPOVAL 249 of the R�ZOIVING of 2025 County Road B from Single Family F�esidential (R-1) ta �50 P�ar�ned Unit �e�elopment (PUD), with an underlying zoning of General Resicfence 251 District {R-3). 252 Ayes: i 253 Nays: 0 2�a Motion carried. 255 MOTION (9.3) 256 Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Gott#ried to RECOMMEf�D 257 APPROVAL of the GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVEL.OPMENi, as 258 prepared for the March 4, 2009 Planning Commission meeting; suhject fo the 2�9 conditions of Section 9 af the staff report dated March 4, 2009; with final appro�al 26C� I�y the City Council considered after all conditions and required documents and z�� permits have been suhrnitted for finai appro�a[, with thase final appro�ais 262 considered as a se.parate application process. 2�3 Commissioner Boerigter questianed the actual concern in making this rezoning change; 2t�4 nating that if shoulcEn't be traffic; the building footprint had been reduced; and noted that 2�5 the current proposal was close to setback requirements anci had limited de�iations from 2�6 square footage requirements. Co€�nmissioner Boerigter noted that the building mass could