CC_Minutes_2010_1206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 23 Residential Districts Chapter 1004 Staff reviewed the main points and modifications of this chapter: Reduced minimum lot size for Low Density Residential (LDR) to achieve lot size compliance in the community, for a minimum width of 75' and 9,500 square feet Proposed limits of LDR -1 and LDR -2 Districts to a maximum of two (2) ac- cessory structures and a total maximum allowance of 1,008 square feet; defin- ing accessory structure to include a garden shed and to eliminate confusion over the type and number of accessory structures Proposed design standards for single family residences to limit the amount of space garage doors may occupy on the street frontage to reduce visual promi- nence of garages on residences and enhance the pedestrian environment Established specific design standards for multiple family dwellings that pro- mote architecturally interesting buildings Creation of a new HDR -2 district that has no density limitations, but instead relies on meeting other site and height limitations to determine density Modification of certain dimensional standards such as reduction in certain set- back areas; establishing height in feet, not number of stories; clarifying im- provement area versus impervious coverage Allows accessory dwelling units, live /work units, and bed and breakfasts previously not allowed as a permitted use, only through a Conditional Use Permit (page 5 and 6 of the Use Chart) Discussion included definition of accessory dwelling units (e.g. mother -in -law units) allowing for flexibility for senior citizens or parents to live on the same property but have some independence; specific standards listed under Perfor- mance Standards for when those uses come forward; and clarification of a "Re- verse Corner" that will be illustrated in a sidebar in the final document. HDR Districts, Page 11, Dimensional Standards Councilmember Roe expressed some concern and requested further staff review about side yard setbacks next to other residential districts; with commercial dis- tricts offering greater setbacks. Councilmember Roe questioned whether similar setbacks or a separate setback standard be considered for multi family districts (larger buildings) adjacent to lower residential districts to ensure height and sha- dow issues are addressed. Councilmember Roe also questioned whether the pro- posed setback was sufficient to address the maximum building height up to 90'. Councilmember Roe referenced a letter from Mr. Steve Enzler related to HDR -2 properties adjacent to LDR properties. Staff concurred that they would further review setbacks; noting that the HDR -2 District was difficult to envision, as there was no example and it was hard to con- ceptualize, given its more urban nature; however, they addressed their cognizance