2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C Councilmember McGehee stated her absolute agreement with staff’s decision on that point. However, Councilmember McGehee stated she was hoping the city’s position wasn’t that PUD was the last possible implement in the tool box, but hoping it was a positive that could be presented. Councilmember McGehee agreed she found nothing exciting in the Good Samaritan proposal, representing a standard development proposal on a standard lot and providing increased housing stock. To allow that project with a CU seems fine for her, but Councilmember McGehee reiterated her preference to encourage more creativity. Councilmember Etten stated his appreciation for this approach, addressing density but also if including the height condition as suggested by staff, it provides the city more control. With the current 65’ building height allowed, Councilmember Etten noted if conditioning the setback, adjacency and height to single-family homes, it provided the ability to deal with concerns of those residents while still allowing for a reasonable project. Councilmember Etten stated he wasn’t concerned with the building forward concept 30’ back from the road right-of-way, opining it didn’t crowd the road, using the Lexington Apartments as an example, and accomplished moving the parking behind and building forward. Councilmember Etten noted another example was the new Sienna Green building that looked good but changed the character in a positive way. Councilmember Willmus stated the area of primary concern to him was corner lot situations and potential of 20’ setback on the other street frontage versus 30’. Councilmember Willmus noted another concern is if deviating significantly from code to achieve increased setback, did it create a problem with current design standards embedded in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Paschke responded that the comprehensive plan didn’t include specific numbers, and only addressed placement in general terms. Mr. Paschke advised that the regulation is what is established in city code. From his personal perspective, Mr. Paschke stated is the city moved too far back from the 30’ setback, it no longer achieved building forward and developers would use that additional 40’ or 50’ for more than green space. Councilmember Willmus reiterated that he was not a fan of the building forward design in every case, even though sometimes it may be fine. Overall, Councilmember Willmus stated he was looking for greater flexibility. If the Good Samaritan site was adjacent to big box retail, Councilmember Willmus noted it would be of less concern to him than when adjacent to homes on a side street. Councilmember Willmus opined he found it hard to consider that flexibility while maintaining citywide standards. Councilmember Willmus stated he’d like to think controls were in place for heights with a PUD, but admitted he still had concerns with setbacks of 20’ on corner lots, and would like front yard setbacks increased slightly as building height increases. Mr. Paschke noted in Community Mixed Use Districts (CMU) when adjacent to a greenway area or other areas, the upper stories had to be set back further. Mr. Paschke suggested that could be explored through this process as well and would result in creating less of a mass. Mayor Roe noted that would be in line with his thoughts as he reviewed the chart in Attachment C. Mayor Roe stated he didn’t have as much concern with MDR parcels, but suggested consistency with single-family considerations, and suggested language such as: “greater of X feet or 50% of building height as setback adjacent to single-family residential.” Mayor Roe stated his interest in also talking about that related front yard setback. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the ratio as suggested by Mr. Paschke, the higher you go, the more you’re required to step the building back.