2006_0828_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

provisions, and noted that the density wasn't in the structure itself, but in the number of units per acre. Mr. Paschke spoke further to the housing goals expressed by the city and how this project addressed those goals and met current code requirements and neighhorhood character; and opined that this project spoke to all the policies guiding the Planning Commission. Mr. Paschke questioned what the actual issue was, whether it was density or design, and questioned the rationale for the density issue, and asked for additional commission discussion and perspective for staffs understanding of what to provide to the developer for constructive modification. Mr. Paschke reminded Commissioners that this was a Concept Plan, and would require additional refinement. However, Mr. Paschke questioned what additional work was being requested in order for staff to understand for the good of the City and the established policies and housing goals in place. Chair Trayno:r acknowledged staffs confusion, with apologies, hut provided his personal rationale. Chair '�"raynor personally expressed that, in terms of density, he wasn't less concerned with the location of the units on the property, rather than the number of units, opining that massing of a four-plex would alter the character of the development and immediately-adjacent residential properties. Chair Trayr�ar further opined that if elimination of the four-plex actually did forsake the goal of affordable housing, it may be that the City couldn't achieve all their goals within this development. Chair Traynor opined that the Twin Lakes project provided more affordable options in a mixed use development to create a sense of neighhorhood. Chair TraynQr reiterated his proposal that the four-plex he replaced by a twin home and increasing the size of the homes. Chair Traynor noted that , while affordahility would he lost, he would accept that as a balance that outweighed the overall design plan and neighborhood. Mr. Paschke opined that the character of the neighborhood was already mixed. Further discussion included the immediate and greater neighhorhood; different characteristics of homes and neighborhoods; massing of the four-plex; economic viability of an office complex and resulting Comprehensive Plan Amendment to include that as a part of the project; whether eliminating two (2) units and increasing the size and sale point (i.e., $800,000) of ten — twelve (10-12) homes was in keeping with the neighborhood or was good for the City of Roseville; need for all types of housing in the city, including four-plexes as an option; current "massing" on �amiine Avenue; and proximity of the proposed four-plex to an existing neighhorhood park. Commissioner poherty observed that the Planning Commission was split 313 with no apparent consensus for recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Paschke noted that this was not a precedent, and had happened in the past. Chair'T'raynor closed the Public Hearing and reviewed the four (4) proposed motions