CC_Minutes_2016_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 Page 10 Based on his recollection of that previous discussion, Mayor Roe noted the dis- cussion was about HDR-2 uses adjacent to more intense uses, and suggested that might make more sense. Councilmember Etten clarified that he was referring to the first line, and reiterated his preference that both be 20’ or 50% whichever is greater versus 10’ only for HDR-2. City Planner Paschke recognized the 20’ made sense, and suggested making that change as recommended by Councilmember Etten. From his review of the August 16, 2016 City Council meeting minutes, Coun- cilmember Willmus recalled that the HDR-1discussion was not similar to the Planning Commission’s allowance for taller buildings in HDR-1 as part of the Conditional Use process. City Planner Paschke clarified that a Conditional Use would be required for any height of over 45’ in HDR-1. Mr. Paschke advised that the Commission’s discus- sion included their concern to stipulate that the allowance for a CU only up to 65’ be very clear; with staff agreeing that made more sense when requiring a Condi- tional Use up to that 65’ maximum height. Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten on the need for con- sistency with the 20’ setback requirement in all designated zones. However, Councilmember McGehee stated she had a problem increasing building height while reducing minimum setbacks. Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten clarified that Councilmember McGehee’s perception was actually opposite of that, with the setback being increased by stip- ulating the 20’ or 50%, whichever was greater, as Councilmember Etten suggest- ed tonight. Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for 20’ also in busi- ness districts if HDR was allowed there to provide more room around the side yards and rear yard. Mayor Roe opined that provides consistency for Business Districts with HDR; and might make more sense if adjacent to residential uses. Mayor Roe sought fur- ther clarification related to HDR on the Table, specifically 8’ for end units and how that impacted side yard building setbacks or if that meant internal to the pro- ject itself. Mr. Paschke agreed that the intent was for separation between units. Mr. Paschke addressed multi-story row houses or townhome projects (e.g. 4- or 8- plexes) depending on their density that would allow setback of the end unit from interior property lines. Mr. Paschke noted the illustration in current zoning code