2016-11-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

With concurrence by Mr. Paschke, Member Kimble noted this would leave maximum 152 height restrictions in HDR-2 Districts open ended. 153 Member Bull noted that he found it conspicuous that there were no recommended 154 changes to corner lot setbacks in HDR-2 Districts, and asked why the inconsistency 155 (page 3). 156 Mr. Paschke responded that while this hadn’t been a concern with the City Council, staff 157 found no need or desire to change that setback, as city design standards addressed 158 building placement at intersections as needed. Mr. Paschke noted other complications 159 may be found if that setback was changes or a need for modifying design standards 160 accordingly, especially related to sight lines and safety issues at corners. Mr. Paschke 161 noted the City Council was more concerned with rear and side yard setbacks adjacent to 162 single-family residential uses versus corner situations on public streets or across the 163 street. 164 Specific to city code definition for building height, Member Bill asked if there was a 165 consistent measurement. 166 Mr. Paschke responded that it was typically defined as midpoint to the roof truss, and for 167 flat roofs at the top of the parapet or mechanical equipment (e.g. elevatored buildings). 168 Mr. Paschke stated he didn’t know if that definition was exact, but was used as a 169 standard review tool. 170 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke confirmed that an elevator cupola 171 counted for the height unless excepted (e.g. eaves, bow windows) as it was part of the 172 building and could prove substantial in some cases. 173 Even though addressed in City Council meeting minutes provided in the staff report, 174 Member Cunningham asked for the main reason the City Council wanted to shy away 175 from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, whether it was to achieve the 10% 176 calculation or if it was to address something unique that stood out for a specific project. 177 Mr. Paschke clarified that an applicant such as the Good Samaritan development could 178 not be required to go through the PUD process specific to modifications to the current 179 PUD process and the 10% rule. In order for a project to precipitate this, Mr. Paschke 180 advised it would need to be modified up to 30%, which had been the main discussion 181 point for the City Council related to that project; it may have been supported for that 182 project, but perhaps not in other areas of the community. Mr. Paschke noted the concern 183 was with unintended consequences in the broader context. 184 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke reviewed the seven deviations 185 allowed under the PUD criteria, with height being one of those potential deviations. If all 186 other criteria were met for a PUD, Mr. Paschke noted those overarching goals needed to 187 be met, allowing the city to support a PUD beyond its standard city code requirements. 188 However, in the case of the Good Samaritan project, Mr. Paschke advised that it was 189 difficult for staff to support the PUD for that project based on the original merits as 190 presented. 191 Member Cunningham stated her appreciation for staff’s clarification; seeking additional 192 clarification if other unique projects came forward that didn’t fit in the PUD category that 193 may also require additional review. 194 Mr. Paschke responded that he couldn’t really address that until seeing how a particular 195 project stacked up with city goals and whether or not the project was in line with those 196 goals. Mr. Paschke reiterated that the purpose of the PUD was not to seek dispensation 197 for a project under the PUD, but to recognize a project may be so unique the city wants to 198 negotiate some give and take for a superior project on a given site, not simply a 199 developer seeking variances plus a PUD for that particular lot. 200 Specific to the Good Samaritan project, Ms. Collins noted it was important to note the 201 discussion surrounding that proposal included their struggle to meet the PUD on the 2- 202 acre minimum site and not meeting that height requirement. Also, Ms. Collins noted the 203 PUD process often proved lengthy and costly as well as labor intensive, and unless it 204