CC_Minutes_2016_0523 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 23, 2016 Page 15 driving; and she spoke in favor of this location, but not as HDR-2 zoning designa- tion. Mayor Roe noted the options included tabling or extending, depending on the land use review deadline and process. Councilmember Willmus noted the review process could be extended by the City Council in writing for up to 60-days. City Attorney Gaughan agreed, as per state statute, the City Council has the abil- ity to extend the review period, as long as their specific reasons for the extension are provided to the applicant in writing. From a staff perspective, Mr. Paschke stated that he was unaware of any easy pro- cess to accomplish what the City Council appeared to be seeking, whether timing was involved or not. Mr. Paschke advised that a number of things would need to be analyzed and taken into consideration to patch in a text amendment as dis- cussed, or for any other process. Mr. Paschke noted that a number of area resi- dents attended the developer's open house but had not subsequently shown up at the public hearing at the Planning Commission; and suggested that may be an in- dication of their lack of concern with the development. While understanding con- cerns with future development or redevelopment, Mr. Paschke opined that it would not be possible to get a density of 250 units on this site even under today's city code, opining any developinent would be well below that number of units and may look dramatically different than this proposed development (e.g. parking and the structure itsel fl, but still be subject to the same limitations. Mr. Paschke rec- ognized a significant amount of fear he was hearing from the City Council about the potential for increased density, but stated he could not see any density as high as the 250-units addressed in one of the traffic study scenarios. Councilinember McGehee opined that those residents attending the open house weren't thinking long-term or ramifications if this proposed development didn't come to fruition, especially if the city was left with a parcel zoned HDR-2 and its implications. Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, DENIAL of the HDR-2 rezoning re- quest based on the findings that the intensity of such zoning use could result in a greater overall density, height: and setbacks on that site, making it a con- cern due to its proximity to surrounding single-family properties. Councilmember McGehee spoke to the points made by Councilmember Willmus and in agreement with them. Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in having the applicant and city planning staff work on ways to make this type of development work for the developer and the city, through some other method than rezoning the parcel to HDR-2.