My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 08172021
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2021
>
PL PACKET 08172021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2021 10:02:08 AM
Creation date
8/12/2021 4:05:22 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
208
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes <br />July 20, 2021 <br />Page 2 <br />1 City Planner Grittman reviewed in April, the Planning Commission discussed staff-proposed <br />2 amendments to the R-4 Zoning District during a work session and agreed that the proposed <br />3 amendment, with some additions and modifications, was ready to proceed to consideration at <br />4 a public hearing for formal Planning Commission recommendation. <br />5 <br />6 From the original staff text, the Commission comments included the following changes, <br />7 which have been incorporated into the ordinance language, both in the comparative table and <br />8 the proposed ordinance itself. The changes are as follows: <br />9 <br />10 Modify the proposed allowable maximum height from sixty feet and five stories to <br />11 fifty feet and four stories. <br />12 Address the proposed requirement for location of senior multi-family on a collector or <br />13 arterial street (due to concerns over existing facilities that may not comply with this <br />14 standard). The proposed language includes an alternative that the facility is served by <br />15 alternative transit options, either public or privately offered. <br />16 Adding requirements to the “General Regulations” in Section 152.105 relating to <br />17 building materials, landscaping and sustainability. <br />18 <br />19 Included in the Commissioner’s packets is a copy of the current regulations in place, as well <br />20 as an updated table-form document that lists the series of potential amendments to the district. <br />21 As part of the table-form document, comments are provided for each proposed change <br />22 discussing the rationale behind the new language. The revisions from the work session are <br />23 highlighted for additional clarity. <br />24 <br />25 The current district language was established many years ago, and reflects a more moderate <br />26 density, suburban style of multi-family development. Just in the past few years, the City h as <br />27 considered multi-family projects on four different sites (one of which did not proceed). Each <br />28 of those were required to utilize the PUD zoning process due to a series of modifications the <br />29 projects required from typical R-4 regulations, including density, setbacks, parking <br />30 calculations, height, and other factors. <br />31 <br />32 The current R-4 District restricts density to anywhere from about 13 units per acre up to 24 <br />33 units per acre, depending on the size of the building. Over the past two years, the City <br />34 considered, and adopted, an updated Comprehensive Plan that directs development in high <br />35 density zoning districts to between 20 and 40 units per acre. <br />36 <br />37 While PUD is still a viable path for projects that exceed density or other aspects of the R-4 <br />38 standards, it can be difficult to process when the individual aspects of the project are of <br />39 borderline quality or push the envelope in some way. Without baseline standards that reflect a <br />40 reasonable expectation for development in the district, everything is left to negotiation, which <br />41 can put the City in a difficult position. <br />42 <br />43 The revisions to the district are intended to create a threshold for higher density projects that <br />44 set an expectation for development. Beyond this, the threshold for PUD consideration would <br />45 also then be higher, as this becomes the new baseline. <br />46
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.