CC_Minutes_2016_0523 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 23, 2016 Page 10 At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke revised impervious coverage and maximum allowable height for HDR-1 and HDR-2 zoning districts as follows. HDR-1 HDR-2 Impervious Coverage 75% 85% Maximum Height 65' 95' Mr. Paschke clarified that there were other differences in the two designations, in- cluding setbacks and other items as they related to Table 1004.06, with any de- velopment bound by the city's main design standards including any and all multi- family development. Under either HDR-1 or HDR-2, Councilmember Willmus asked if placement of the building itself would be subject to the "building forward" design, and asked if so, which intersection would it be pushed toward. Mr. Paschke stated the building would be closest to the Albert Street and County Road B intersection. As a long-term consideration and discussion for the City Council, Councilmember Etten noted that current setbacks for HDR-2 were very limited, and while under- standing the increased density, he opined it was significantly less than setbacic re- quirements in HDR-1, with no apparent specificity for extra setbacks adjacent to low density residential (LDR) zoned areas. Councilmember Etten expressed con- cern with potential impacts to neighboring areas and how best to adjust the cur- rent code for future projects. When reviewing the traffic study, Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Paschke if staff had consulted with the Public Works Department, noting current traffic is- sues already along that entire area. Mr. Paschke advised that the traffic study had indicated no alerts for development scenarios up to 250 units, and while making some suggestions, indicated nothing major. Councilmember McGehee noted that, by changing this zoning designation from LDR-1 to LDR-2, a project could actually significantly exceed 62 units. Mr. Paschke confirmed that a project could do so, with nothing stopping a higher density proj ect under LDR-2 zoning designation, and allowing for a much denser project on the site, thus the traffic study requirement as part of the application process.