City Council Minutes 2020 09 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 3 of 8 • Allowing parking between buildings and S. 96th St with enhanced landscaping, rather than behind buildings • Adding option for slanted roofline elements for buildings fronting S. 96th St, rather than only requiring pitched roofs • Amending heights for Zone 2B to 40' from 35' • Amending FAR to increase from 306,531 sf to 377,450 sf Ritchie reviewed the proposed layout of the property including uses and building heights. Ritchie stated the 2013 Comprehensive Plan has this site as a rural gateway to the City and uses are to be separated and buffered from the surrounding roads. The Comp Plan allows up to .25 FAR and heights up to 3 stories if located out of the public view shed and buffered by surrounding topography and open space. Ritchie stated staff found the following components of the proposal meet that policy: • Uses are acknowledged in Comp Plan • Private streets provide same connectivity • Height increase is consistent with intended character of GDP and surrounding development • FAR increase is within Comp Plan limits and maintains the west to east transition • Traffic study reflects slightly less impact • Fiscal benefit to the city Staff however, believes the parking setback reduction does not meet that policy. The applicant is requesting a reduced 35-foot setback for the sections abutting 95t" Street. The Planning Commission recommended the 55-foot setback for all portions of the property. The Comp Plan does not have a specific number for the buffer but staff recommends the 55-foot as it is similar to the nearby CTC setbacks. The applicant has given four reasons to reduce the parking setback: • Lot lines on preliminary plat should not be revised • Improvements in right-of-way should help meet buffer requirement • Lots fronting South 96t" St are not marketable with a deeper setback • Intended development at the rear of the property will not have adequate depth Staff acknowledges the 55-foot setback may cause some issues, but finds those can be addressed by moving lot lines and staff feels it will not adversely affect this development. Staff Recommends approval of the ordinance with one condition that the applicant shall revise the application to require a minimum 55-foot parking setback for Zone 2A Councilmember Lipton asked if the applicant could ask for a variance or change to the setback in the PUD process. Ritchie stated the PUD process would not allow that, a GDP amendment would be needed.