2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A When reviewing the traffic study, Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Paschke if staff had ЋВ consulted with the Public Works Department, noting current traffic issues already along that ЌЉ entire area. ЌЊ Mr. Paschke advised that the traffic study had indicated no alerts for development scenarios ЌЋ up to 250 units, and while making some suggestions, indicated nothing major. ЌЌ Councilmember McGehee noted that, by changing this zoning designation from LDR-1 to ЌЍ LDR-2, a project could actually significantly exceed 62 units. ЌЎ Mr. Paschke confirmed that a project could do so, with nothing stopping a higher density ЌЏ project under LDR-2 zoning designation, and allowing for a much denser project on the site, ЌА thus the traffic study requirement as part of the application process. ЌБ In these types of situations, when particular requirements of a district appear to be ЌВ problematic for development, Mayor Roe asked staff if they looked at zoning to a higher use ЍЉ to accommodate that development or if consideration was given (e.g. text amendments) ЍЊ changing components of the zoning district itself. ЍЋ Mr. Paschke responded that staff had not looked at text amendments for the zoning district, ЍЌ and opined he wasn't sure if staff was overly concerned about requirements built into the ЍЍ code or design standards, since the goal was to balance the ordinance with city code (e.g. ЍЎ design standards, setbacks, parking, etc.) to achieve overall compliance. Mr. Paschke stated ЍЏ he wasn't aware of any discussion about one being more problematic than another; and when ЍА accepting the application to go to a greater density to accommodate extra units on the site, ЍБ the building would still have been placed on the same location based on current code ЍВ requirements. ЎЉ When redoing the zoning code in 2010, and not requiring any additional setbacks, Mayor ЎЊ Roe opined that may have been the context for adding HDR-2 amongst higher intensity ЎЋ uses. Mayor Roe suggested that maybe wasn't a concern at that time, but language was ЎЌ added for staff to be able to consider greater setbacks for those types of developments if they ЎЍ are proposed next to less intense uses. ЎЎ City Manager Trudgeon concurred with that context. Specific to Mayor Roe's suggestion for ЎЏ a text amendment versus rezoning, Mr. Trudgeon suggested caution and further review of ЎА that, since the concern in creating HDR-2 was that this type of density wasn't recommended ЎБ citywide, but only at very specific locations and to serve as a vehicle for greater density on ЎВ each project's merits versus a general text amendment. Mr. Trudgeon stated he would not ЏЉ advise a text amendment, but would advise keeping review on a case-by-case basis. ЏЊ Applicant Representatives, Construction Consultant Nathan Kraft with Good ЏЋ Samaritan Society; and Enrico Williams, Kaas Wilson Architects, Bloomington, MN ЏЌ Mr. Kraft reported that financials for this type of affordable senior housing project indicated ЏЍ a minimum of sixty units would work, with this current model seeking 62 units. Mr. Kraft ЏЎ reiterated Good Samaritan's intention that there was no intention of moving toward any ЏЏ higher density than those 62 units. ЏА ЏБ