2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Discussion ensued related to the CU process and ability of the City Council to make decisions on a case by case basis and as part of public health, safety and welfare considerations to review surrounding land uses. Specific to the calculations for the Good Samaritan project, if around 30%, it would allow for 33 plus units, not much different than the requested 36 units; and suggested that number was appropriate for this particular proposal. Councilmember Etten stated his preference to think about this more broadly, and not change the chart (page 2) for just this specific project, but to address the building height concern at a maximum of 50’ to 55’ when adjacent to LDR-1 and LDR-2 parcels. Councilmember Etten opined that may satisfy both needs and give more latitude for the city. Mayor Roe clarified that there was no recommended change to the chart tonight; and agreed he would like to see height restrictions addressed in code; and preferred that this recommendation come back to the City Council after further refinement and research of those items noted by staff before going through the Planning Commission process with that additional information included. Mayor Roe also asked that an increase to 36 units per acre be looked at through the CU lens for other properties recently under discussion and deviation from HDR-1 for their specific acreage. If the City Council wants to make this change and CU approval, if it was found that 80% of those other properties fell within that range, Mayor Roe opined that it would provide helpful information within that context and for subsequent discussion. Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to review city code setback language, building height related to adjacencies, and capping units per acre at 36 without conditions and specific to subsequent HDR-1 discussions. Councilmember McGehee asked if there was a way to simply tweak the PUD ordinance for those projects offering much in terms of amenities and material, to allow a 10% increase in residential density depending on the number of site amenities included. Councilmember McGehee noted once the increase in density was specified at 30% for the PUD, it would be binding and run with the property in perpetuity. Councilmember McGehee stated she saw that as an alternative route to the CU. Mayor Roe suggested making the PUD increase potential consistent with the CU potential, with the developer having the option to pursue either route for additional density preferences, based on other considerations as a trade-off. Mayor Roe further suggested, if just a density issue, the developer could follow the PUD process, but noted further discussion may occur on that specific issue during subsequent discussion of the City Council when this item returns in the near future. Councilmember McGehee opined she saw that as a value-added path in the PUD process; but stated she wasn’t sure if there was a 10% increase allowed in the context of current requirements; and suggested those discussions be held all-inclusively. Councilmember Laliberte stated her preference to talk about existing weaknesses in the PUD process, especially since that work was so recently completed; and may need a fresh look to determine if it was working as originally intended. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with tonight’s discussion, and agreed with one last review before it went to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Laliberte clarified her rationale in voting against this