2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Councilmember McGehee agreed; and questioned if there was a specific reason to bump up HDR-1 and HDR-2 units per acre. Mayor Roe advised that the reason was to clearly define the number of units at a maximum of 36 units to avoid an infinite number, and as confirmed by Mr. Paschke, anything else would fall under the PUD process. Under those circumstances, Councilmember McGehee stated her satisfaction with the proposal at 36 units, allowing the Good Samaritan project to reach their preferred goal. Discussion ensued between Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus related to two different zoning categories for a 30% increase in HDR-1 at 36 units per acre. Councilmember Willmus advised he wasn’t supportive of HDR-1 at 36 units, and expressed interest for HDR-2 zoning to look at a unit cap per acre; as well as tweaking setback requirements. Councilmember Etten expressed his appreciation for the latitude this allowed the City Council. However, Councilmember Etten stated one remaining concern was how this worked with the single-family buffers in LDR-1 and LDR-2 zoning for density, referencing the HDR chart and setback requirements based on where they’re located for HDR-1 and HDR-2; questioning if the same could be done for height. Mr. Paschke agreed that could be done, suggesting a 10’ allowance for increased density in both districts. Councilmember Etten stated that would alleviate some of his concerns; and agreed with the setbacks for HDR-2, which were now often significantly less than those found in HDR-1; with no allowances whether next to LDR-1 or LDR-2 zoned properties; and without that protection, higher density remained problematic from his perspective. Mr. Paschke advised that staff would need to further review those requirements and how they fit with overall design standards in city code, and what could be accomplished with setbacks. Mayor Roe noted there were other sections of code that dealt with adjacency to single-family parcels, maybe not across the street, but those directly adjacent. Ms. Collins noted the subscript in the RCA below Table 1004-6 (page 2) addressing dimensional standards. Mayor Roe noted there were less setback requirements for HDR-1 districts placed in or around Regional Business designations or more intense uses with greater height allowed. Since there isn’t anything currently being built on HDR-2 zoned parcels, Mayor Roe noted this allowed the ability for the City Council to look at every proposed HDR-2 parcel next to single-family parcels. Mayor Roe noted this may have been the rationale for setting it up that way and may make sense for some parcels while not with others, all unknown at this point; and allowing future City Councils the discretion to make those changes accordingly. For this specific Good Samaritan project, Mayor Roe opined HDR-1 was what worked for this parcel; and suggested HDR-2 may be part of the comprehensive plan update discussion and MDR and HDR process within the community, providing broader discussion and more public input.