CC_Minutes_2016_0725 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 25, 2016 Page 13 Councilmember McGehee noted the existing PUD process now in place, and stat- ed her lack of interest in changing it, since it changed across the entire city, not just for one parcel. Councilmember McGehee noted the city had a history of do- ing � spot rezoning, which she was not supportive of. However, Councilmem- ber McGehee questioned the best option for a site and desirable project such as the Good Samaritan project where it provided needed housing stock, and whether it was possible to provide a CU for this particular parcel and specify the number of units sought by the developer with appropriate height and setbacks addressed. Councilmember McGehee opined she found their site plan and overall layout rea- sonable; but struggled with how to specify CU running with the land and to what extend to ensure it conformed with no more than 48 units and the proposed over- all building footprint and height, specific to a CU. Mayor Roe clarified that staff's recommendation was to change the number of units per acre, with all other zoning requirements for HDR-1 and HDR-2 districts remaining unchanged. Mayor Roe noted the Good Samaritan project met all zon- ing requirements for HDR-1 except the number of units per acre; and this pro- posed revision attempted to address that, while not changing any other standards already met. Mayor Roe opined that if the City Council wanted a CU to apply more restrictions on other elements, it sounded more like a PUD process to change density. Mr. Paschke noted the PUD process, up to 36 units in the case of the Good Sa- maritan project, would serve to limit that project to a certain number of units on the site and other conditions that would run with the property. Mr. Paschke noted the majority of the project met most other HDR-1 conditions. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that any conditions reasonable related to and pursuant to the CU process and the actual project itself allowed the City Council some latitude and direction under the PUD process to include more ancillary conditions as indicated, and as noted "reasonable" and al- ready within the city's PUD language ordinance. Mayor Roe clarified the reasons for concern and rationale in looking at PUD's was the notion of providing all other changes when looking to address a particular proposal that met all other requirements of HDR-1, other than rezoning for units per acre, as with the Good Samaritan project. However, Mayor Roe noted that discussion opened up other discussions related to height and setbacks on the site that would follow the property in perpetuity. Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested the city keep the rest of the zoning parameters in place, and allow for no density in CU versus the PUD process; noting that wasn't relevant to this proposal; and therefore suggested not putting that into play in this situation when considering density per acre.