2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B him was the overall height and proximity of this type of use to surrounding single-family residential and what those existing neighborhoods would be faced with. Councilmember Willmus questioned if increasing units per acre addressed either of those variables. Mayor Roe noted, with confirmation from Mr. Paschke, the 30’ setback form the side property line that would remain in effect. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that there was no HDR-2 zoned parcels yet built upon, but several zoned accordingly. Therefore, Mayor Roe noted any development would need to request rezoning from the city to add height over the 65’ in the HDR-1 zone. Councilmember McGehee noted the existing PUD process now in place, and stated 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 doing that spot rezoning, which she was not supportive of. However, Councilmember 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 reasonable; 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 overall 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 zoning requirements for HDR-1 except the number of units per acre; and this proposed 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 Samaritan 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 already 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.