2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C Councilmember Willmus stated he wasn’t sure if all issues were as segregated as the City Council would like them to be. Specific to increased density, Councilmember Willmus noted the proposed process laid out under CU didn’t really accomplish what he was looking for: greater protection for adjacent properties dependent on what is written in the comprehensive plan and city code. Councilmember Willmus stated that was his issue; and advised he didn’t want to see a potential balcony 15’ from a right-of-way adjacent to single family homes. Councilmember Willmus opined that this could be accomplished by review of city code and the comprehensive plan in some of those areas. Councilmember Willmus noted, for example, when a building forward design adjacent to another parcel pushed the building forward toward the street or an intersection, he was concerned with how that impacted the right-of-way at the property line, whether across the street or next door, and issues of scale that come into question for him with higher buildings and their balconies looking down on single-family homes. Councilmember McGehee agreed that the other issue with setbacks bumping up against single- family uses and the potential for only a 10’ separation and with additional height looking into those residential back yards. Councilmember McGehee stated her intent with the PUD process was to invite interesting uses of spaces, and cooperation on sites and design; while this appeared to put a restriction on the city with the density issue. Councilmember McGehee stated that specific areas of interest from her perspective and over and above the list of PUD qualifications included site amenities and flexibility (e.g. underground parking) and while recognizing that this affects these designated properties citywide, she was concerned about waiting for completion of the comprehensive plan update and potential for another development to come forward between now and then. Mayor Roe noted there were current zoning standards and PUD codes in place that the city had spent considerable time in addressing their detail and criteria. If the consideration was whether or not to increase density by 10%, Mayor Roe advised that he had some additional questions. In previous discussions, Mayor Roe noted the specific Good Samaritan proposal met all HDR-1 requirements with the exception of unit density. Mayor Roe asked if there was a way to accommodate that development without the PUD process or a less expensive or easier process for the developer. Mr. Paschke advised that a larger issue than that, with there being nothing unique about the Good Samaritan proposal, was that the PUD process is considered the last option in the tool box. From just a density perspective and tweaking that one area, Mr. Paschke opined was not in the city’s best interest. While it didn’t change that project on its face, Mr. Paschke advised it still didn’t achieve all the goals and aspirations for the PUD other than changing one item to qualify it under listed criteria. In other words, Mayor Roe noted the project didn’t meet any notable number or any tradeoffs that the city looked for in the PUD process, with concurrence by Mr. Paschke. Ms. Collins opined that current code was subjective enough that it could fit anything in overarching goals, but as far as the PUD process, the intent was to obtain a unique proposal where you’re leveraging out-of-the-box standards for creative or superior design. In the case of the Good Samaritan proposal, Ms. Collins noted it was proposing an HDR use on an HDR site, and just sought a little greater density. Ms. Collins opined that would most often be the case; but when staff was looking at options, it sought to look at the city holistically to see where the most benefit was and address density through the CU not only for the Good Samaritan site alone.