Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 25, 2016 <br />Page 14 <br />Councilmember McGehee agreed; and questioned if there was a specific reason to <br />bump up HDR-1 and HDR-2 units per acre. <br />Mayor Roe advised that the reason was to clearly define the number of units at a <br />maximum of 36 units to av fall underfihe PUD process.d as confirmed by Mr. <br />Paschke, anything else would <br />Under those circumstances, Councilmember McGehee stated her satisfaction with <br />the proposal at 36 units, allowing the Good Samaritan project to reach their pre- <br />ferred goal. <br />Discussion ensued between Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus related to <br />two different zoning categories for a 30% increase in HDR-1 at 36 units per acre. <br />Councilmember Willmus advised he wasn't supportive of HDR-1 at 36 units, and <br />expressed interest in HDR-2 zoning to look at a unit cap per acre; as well as <br />tweaking setback requirements. <br />Councilmember Etten expressed his appreciation for the latitude this allowed the <br />City Council. However, Councilmember Etten stated one remaining concern was <br />how this worked with the single-family buffers in LDR-1 and LDR-2 zoning for <br />density, referencing the HDR chart and setback requirements based on where <br />they're located for HDR-1 and HDR-2; questioning if the same could be done for <br />height. <br />Mr. Paschke agreed that could be done, suggesting a 10' allowance for increased <br />density in both districts. <br />Councilmember Etten stated that would alleviate some of his concerns; but still <br />did not agree with the setbacks for HDR-2, which are often significantly less than <br />those found in HDR-1; with no allowances whether next to LDR-1 or LDR-2 <br />zoned properties; and without that protection, higher density remained problemat- <br />ic from his perspective. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that staff would need to further review those requirements <br />and how they fit with overall design standards in city code, and what could be ac- <br />complished with setbacks. <br />Mayor Roe noted there were other sections of code that dealt with adj acency to <br />single-family parcels, maybe not across the street, but those directly adjacent. <br />Ms. Collins noted the subscript in the RCA below Table 1004-6 (page 2) address- <br />ing dimensional standards. <br />Mayor Roe noted there were less setback requirements for HDR-1 districts placed <br />in or around Regional Business designations or more intense uses with greater <br />