My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_030409
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
pm_030409
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2010 10:42:10 AM
Creation date
3/1/2010 10:42:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/4/2009
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 04, 2009 <br /> <br />Page 14 <br />Ayes: 4 (Boerigter; Best; Martinson; Bakeman) <br />Nays: 3 (Doherty; Wozniak; Gottfried) <br />Motion carried. <br />MOTION (9.2) <br />Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Best to RECOMEMND APRPOVAL <br />of the REZONING of 2025 County Road B from Single Family Residential (R-1) to <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD), with an underlying zoning of General Residence <br />District (R-3). <br />Ayes: 7 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />MOTION (9.3) <br />Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to RECOMMEND <br />APPROVAL of the GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, as <br />prepared for the March 4, 2009 Planning Commission meeting; subject to the <br />conditions of Section 9 of the staff report dated March 4, 2009; with final approval <br />by the City Council considered after all conditions and required documents and <br />permits have been submitted for final approval; with those final approvals <br />considered as a separate application process. <br />Commissioner Boerigter questioned the actual concern in making this rezoning change; <br />noting that it shouldn’t be traffic; the building footprint had been reduced; and noted that <br />the current proposal was close to setback requirements and had limited deviations from <br />square footage requirements. Commissioner Boerigter noted that the building mass could <br />remain even if the developer chose to reduce number units and make them bigger within <br />the same footprint. <br />Chair Bakeman expressed concern with the size of the building; and suggested that with <br />a separate limitation on the building size or mass, it may help neighbors’ concerns and <br />keep the building to a reasonable size. <br />Commissioner Gottfried opined that he was not as concerned about traffic capacity as <br />with the scale of the building: its size, mass and height creating the overall scale. <br />Commissioner Gottfried opined that the proposed building seemed overkill in providing <br />continuity of the neighborhood. <br />Mr. Paschke addressed density versus mass issues; perceptions of a truss roof system <br />rather than a flat roof system; location of two (2) major thoroughfares on either side of the <br />property; previous consideration of a townhome project in 1995, and consideration of <br />Medium Density of the parcel at that time; and transitions into other single-family uses. <br />Mr. Paschke indicated that, if building scale was still an issue, there were exterior façade <br />designs that could visually reduce the perceived building scale and other available <br />mitigation measures. <br />Chair Bakeman and Commissioner Wozniak opined that, if the building didn’t have the <br />north-south piece or wall, it may fit better, rather than the footprint filling the entire parcel, <br />and providing for more green space. <br />Commissioner Best opined that the private market and economy would dictate the <br />density to some measure; and noted the ongoing work of staff and the applicant on <br />reducing the footprint and increasing the green space. <br />Commissioner Doherty suggested conditions that would provide an average, not-to- <br />exceed square footage per unit; that would ultimately reduce the number of units and the <br />building footprint. <br />Commissioner Boerigter suggested that, rather than Commissioners attempting to <br />redesign the project, that the vote be called, leaving the decision up to Mr. Mueller and <br />his architects. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.