2016-10-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C Without objection, Mayor Roe noted that the council directed staff to use the CU process for density above 24 units per acre for HDR-1 multi-family buildings and CU for heights above 45’, including stepping back setbacks when adjacent to single family uses, applying the ratio, and associated language for stepping back for corner and street setbacks referencing LDR-1, LDR-2, and MDR as well for consistency. Regarding design standard language, Mayor Roe questioned if the Good Samaritan proposal met those requirements, based on location of their primary entrance and how it was to face one of two streets, but instead faced their parking lot. Mayor Roe stated some of those things helped him with the 30’ setback, and this was not an urban design building forward, but as the 2010 code language was intended to address related to avoiding a “sea of asphalt” between the street and building. Mayor Roe opined that the challenge was to find something between urban design that placed buildings up against a sidewalk that was of little interest to the city with few exceptions, but also to move away from past developments with a huge parking lot in front of a building. Councilmember McGehee asked Ms. Collins to bring ideas forward for better looking parking lots that could address some of the city’s existing aesthetically displeasing parking lots, including sustainable parking lots and landscaping features. Mayor Roe noted this had come up with the 2010 zoning improvements and former standards, while presenting a challenge in what triggered meeting those new standards and the expense involved with those improvements. Mr. Paschke agreed, noting this also was at the heart of requirements versus suggestions and not attempting to stifle redevelopment if a BMP was required for all projects, and balancing desired outcomes and realities for developers and property owners. Ms. Collins noted this was an area to give consideration to in the EDA homework about environmental design and financing tools. Specific to primary street frontage in the Good Samaritan proposal, Councilmember Willmus asked if that could be accomplished by the primary drive requirement in city code. Mr. Paschke responded that it could not, as the Good Samaritan proposed building would have its primary frontage on County Road B, as that called out the most pedestrian traffic area as called out specifically in city code versus how a parcel is addressed and addressed in a sidebar of the definition for a primary street. Mayor Roe noted language about corner lots and how they primary street was addressed in that context; and asked that staff review both sections to make sure code was not contradictory. Without objection, Mayor Roe clarified for staff that the council directed them to adjust the maximum unit density to 36 units/acre and maximum height for HDR-2 to 65’ with anything over that requiring a CU. Ms. Collins reviewed the next step in the process to use tonight’s City Council input to formulate text amendments by staff to present to the Planning Commission and subsequent public hearing for recommendation to the City Council for final decision-making. Mayor Roe clarified direction for staff that adjacencies and setbacks would impact HDR, but also all commercial and office and industrial districts as well, duly noted by Ms. Collins. Without objection, Mayor Roe noted this would allow the same standards to apply for adjacencies throughout city code text. Mayor Roe noted this applied to adjacencies to LDR and MDR uses in city code versus adjacencies to other residential uses.