2016-10-05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Density 47 With a goal toward affording increased density in HDR-1 Districts, establishing a base 48 density and managing density in HDR-2 Districts, Mr. Paschke referenced proposed text 49 amendments as detailed in the staff report. With no current height limitation in HDR-2 50 Districts, Mr. Paschke noted potential rezoning in that category presented some concerns 51 about possible ramifications. By modifying the HDR District to support a change in 52 density based on a specific project under a Conditional Use application, Mr. Paschke 53 advised this would alleviate those concerns and possible ramifications. 54 Mr. Paschke used the recent application by Good Samaritan and their proposed project 55 that met all current city code requirements of HDR-2 Districts with the exception of units 56 per acre. 57 Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised that staff was recommending the Conditional Use 58 process to allow density increases from 24 to 36 units per acre in HDR-1 Districts; and 59 allowing projects with no more than 36 units per acre in HDR-2 Districts (refer to Table 60 1004-06, page 2). 61 Building Height 62 As detailed in the staff report, Mr. Paschke reviewed staff’s recommendations to address 63 concerns by council members related to building setbacks and building height related to 64 dimensional standards previously outlined in the 1995 city code (Attachment D) and the 65 2010 zoning code update for Residential, Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Employment 66 Districts. 67 Mr. Paschke advised that staff recommends requiring a Conditional Use for buildings 68 over 45’ height in HDR-1 Districts and over 65’ high in HDR-2 Districts as opposed to the 69 current maximum heights designated at 65’ and 95’ respectively (Table 1004-6, page 2). 70 Mr. Paschke noted there wasn’t much anticipation of mitigation required for multi-story 71 buildings as they fell under a different and more expensive building code design (e.g. 72 wood construction under traditional methods) the more stories involved. 73 Residential Setbacks 74 Mr. Paschke advised that the City Council requested staff to look at establishing setback 75 requirements for all districts as follows: 76 • Side yard: 10’ or 50% of building height (whichever is greater) 77 • Rear yard: 20’ or 50% of building height (whichever is greater) 78 Mr. Paschke reviewed current code requirements and conflicting points in that current 79 code for LDR-1, LDR-2 and MDR Districts, as well as a number of nonconformities and 80 some oddities related to single-family homes or townhomes. For more detailed changes, 81 Mr. Paschke advised that the broader comprehensive plan update may additional 82 recommended changes beyond these outlined in the staff report. 83 Related to Regional- or Community-Business District uses, Mr. Paschke noted the term 84 “residential lot boundary” was defined intentionally when something may be a residential 85 use but not necessarily zoned residential. While staff was making no recommended text 86 revisions to Business Districts, Mr. Paschke advised that he would leave that to the 87 discretion of the Commission if they chose to do so. 88 As detailed in the staff report, Mr. Paschke reviewed triggers for adjacent heights 89 depending on the specific district. Mr. Paschke reviewed adjacencies and staff 90 modifications as recommended for those districts and the 50% clause, specific for interior 91 lot setbacks as noted. Mr. Paschke reviewed each specific District as outlined in the staff 92 report and proposed changes accordingly. 93 Commission Deliberation 94 Member Murphy opined this had been one of the more challenging homework 95 assignments for the Commission during his tenure; and asked if staff had received any 96 additional public feedback since preparation of the agenda packet, with Mr. Paschke 97 responding there had been no additional feedback. 98