CC_Minutes_2022_1128 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 28, 2022 Page 11 if there is any consideration looking, either in conjunction with the project on this site or in the near terms, to perhaps complete a sidewalk loop around this Pascal, Commerce, Albert, County Road B block, given the amount of high density resi- dential there is in that area. Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer knew Commerce is in the Pathways Mas- ter Plan, Albert may also be in there but certainly, if there is gap segment, if this gets approved and there is a segment built on Albert, it would be something staff would look to make a full connection. Mayor Roe indicated the bonus for structure parking in conjunction with the pro- posal that has a significant amount of the lot coverage, either building or parking, he was not sure what the City was getting for the bonus, necessarily. Mr. Lloyd thought if the impervious coverage on this site, as proposed, is closer to sixty percent than seventy-five percent, that may be a result of using more effort to structure more stalls than they otherwise would have. If there is still capacity for surface stalls and they are much less expensive to build, he could easily see how more of this site could be covered by impervious surfaces and still conform to the Code requirements. Mr. McKinney indicated there are 114 bedrooms on this site. Relative to the bonus, in particular to this site, if they did not receive the bonus there would be a situation where there would not be a viable site in terms of the amount of unit counts and the setbacks for this particular site, so the buildable area would be such that it would not be anything feasible from a building standpoint. He thought they were looking at a site that is both guided and zoned high density, the bonus is the difference between a project or not a project, whether it would be them or someone else. Councilmember Etten indicated based on this information, City Code states one parking spot per bedroom plus .25 parking spots per unit which get this project to needing one hundred thirty five parking spaces and this project has one hundred thirty nine, according to count and meets City Code. Councilmember Strahan indicated for the residents that commented that it should be a park, unfortunately the City does not own this land, so that is not currently an option the City possess. Etten moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11948 entitled, "Resolu- tion Approving Residential Density Greater Than 24 Dwelling Units per Acre in Support of a Proposed Apartment Project (PF22-012)." Council Discussion