CC_Minutes_2016_0523 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 23, 2016 Page 11 In these types of situations, when particular requirements of a district appear to be problematic for development, Mayor Roe asked staff if they looked at zoning to a higher use to accommodate that development or if consideration was given (e.g. text amendments) changing components of the zoning district itself. Mr. Paschke responded that staff had not looked at text amendinents for the zon- ing district, and opined he wasn't sure if staff was overly concerned about re- quirements built into the code or design standards, since the goal was to balance the ordinance with city code (e.g. design standards, setbacks, parking, etc.) to achieve overall compliance. Mr. Paschke stated he wasn't aware of any discus- sion about one being more problematic than another; and when accepting the ap- plication to go to a greater density to accommodate extra units on the site, the building would still have been placed on the same location based on current code requirements. When redoing the zoning code in 2010, and not requiring any additional setbacks, Mayor Roe opined that may have been the context for adding HDR-2 amongst higher intensity uses. Mayor Roe suggested that maybe wasn't a concern at that time, but language was added for staff to be able to consider greater setbacks for those types of developments if they are proposed next to less intense uses. City Manager Trudgeon concurred with that context. Specific to Mayor Roe's suggestion for a text amendment versus rezoning, Mr. Trudgeon suggested cau- tion and fiirther review of that, since the concern in creating HDR-2 was that this type of density wasn't recoinmended citywide, but only at very specific locations and to serve as a vehicle for greater density on each project's merits versus a gen- eral text amendment. Mr. Trudgeon stated he would not advise a text amendment, but would advise keeping review on a case-by-case basis. Applicant Representatives, Construction Consultant Nathan Kraft with Good Samaritan Society; and Enrico Williams, Kaas Wilson Architects, Bloomington, MN Mr. Kraft reported that financials for this type of affordable senior housing project indicated a minimum of sixty units would work, with this current model seeking 62 units. Mr. Kraft reiterated Good Samaritan's intention that there was no inten- tion of moving toward any higher density than those 62 units. Mr. Williams noted that the design of the proposed building actually follows HDR-1 zoning with the only exception that of density and pervious versus imper- vious areas, at 50%. Mr. Williams advised that the proposed structure was inten- tionally kept under the maximum height requirements, with setbacics were within HDR-1 guidelines as well.