2016-11-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

generally expected to shrink along with lot sizes.The LDR-1, LDR-2, and MDR zoning districts 24 were intended to allowfor an increasing proportion of improvement area in an effort to ensure 25 that the lots remained reasonably developable even as the lot sizes approached the minimum 26 standards in their respective districts. 27 This intent is reflected in early drafts of the LDR-1 and -2 and MDR district regulations, 28 although these earliest drafts still utilized limits only on impervious surfaces, as had traditionally 29 been the case. The draft of the LDR-1 district carried forward the 30% limit of the former R1 30 district, the draft LDR-2 district would have allowed 50% impervious coverageon lots for single- 31 family, detached homes, and the draft MDR district would have allowed 60% impervious 32 coverage. Eventually, the draft regulations shifted focus from only limiting impervious surfaces 33 to also limiting the kinds of overall built improvements discussed above,since those other 34 improvements also affect the character of a residential property. This is when the 50% 35 improvement arealimit was proposed for the LDR-1 district, and the 70% limit was proposed for 36 the LDR-2 district. Staff has been unable to find documentation of why these particular figures 37 were proposed, but they were established some time before the discussion of an improvement 38 area limit for the MDR district. This time differential seems relevant because it may help to 39 explain the apparent failure to reconcilethe 65% limit later set for the MDR district withthe 70% 40 limit in the LDR-2 district when the LDR-2 limit would be expected to be lower than the MDR 41 limit for the reasons noted previously. 42 The City Council’s initial indication about this amendment was that a 50% improvement area 43 limit was preferred for the LDR-2 district, coinciding with the same limit in the LDR-1 district. 44 Planning Division staff believes that there is good reason to lower the limit in the LDR-2 district, 45 especially sincethe current limit is greater than that of the MDR district. If there is some 46 perceivedvalue in the diversity of housing choices facilitated by the unique LDR-2 lot sizes, then 47 allowing a degree of development on LDR-2 lots between the 50% LDR-1 limit andthe 65% 48 MDR limit would be worthwhile. To that end, giventhat the minimum lot size in the LDR-2 49 district (i.e., 6,000 square feet) is quite a bit closer to the 4,800square-foot minimum MDR lot 50 size than the minimum lot size in the LDR-1 district (i.e., 11,000 square feet), Planning Division 51 staff believes that an LDR-2improvement area limit of 60% is reasonable to consider. 52 PC UBLIC OMMENT 53 At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has not received any communication 54 about the proposed amendment from members of the public. 55 RA ECOMMENDEDCTION 56 By motion, recommend approval of the proposedzoning text amendment, based on the 57 comments and findings of this report. 58 AA LTERNATIVE CTIONS 59 Pass a motion to table the applicationfor future action. While there’s no required timeline for 60 approving City-initiated proposals such as this, deferring action into the future could have 61 adverse consequences for property owners or potential developers who may be following this 62 process and anticipating its conclusion. 63 By motion, recommend denialof the request. A recommendation to denythe application 64 should be supported by specific findings of fact based on the Planning Commission’sreview of 65 the application, applicable City Coderegulations, and the public record. 66 PROJ0017-Improvement_Area-RPCA_20161102 Page 2of 3