AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 68 Commissioner Bondonno noted that was his question. He had trouble reading this area of the text and felt it had several interpretations. He felt it necessary to make this text area more consistently clear and therefore defensible on down the line. Chair Radcliffe asked if two Motions might help to make things more clear for the Commissioners. Mr. Aranda stated two Motions separate motions were possible, or they could stick with one Motion. His suggestion was, if they wanted concise clarification they could change the wording to reflect the State limit of one single family dwelling, one two-family dwelling or one three-family dwelling per lot except permitted dwelling groups approved pursuant to the PD permit. In this way it was consistent with the language of all three suggested scenarios. He noted they could take action on the prior motion regarding scenario number two and then make a subsequent motion to follow. Chair Radcliffe stated she would not vote for scenario number two. She will be voting for scenario number one because that is what was already used as a guideline and liked the larger envelope and availability for developers to have more options. She was comfortable with the projects she had seen thus far to this point. She noted the importance of the infill projects for the health of the City which would come with scenario, number one. Commissioner Tabing asked if a Planned Development Permit was required in the first place for anything over 10,000 square feet, scenario two could allow for denser development due to additional items being incorporated into the PO permit. Ms. Ekas stated this was true of a density bonus if pursuant to the provision of affordable housing. Commissioner Smith clarified scenario two brought with it no density bonuses unless the development affordable housing parameters. He noted there was anxiety in the community regarding scenario number one. He felt people were too focused on the 1116 dwelling units per acre." He noted this was a guideline and did not mean that every single acre would lead to 16 dwelling units. He vacillated between making a choice to go with either scenario one or scenario two. He noted the importance of the decision lie in which was better for the City and its neighborhoods overall. Commissioner Holt spoke to the fact that Staff had mentioned there had been very little activity in the R-2 Zoning District in the recent past to give them any real examples with which to go from. She agreed scenario three was not a good option overall. She spoke to being sensitive to where the R-2 zones are located especially when it came to density bonuses. She noted the catch-22 that everyone wanted more affordable housing, but the flip side was complaints about higher densities. Commissioner Tabing stated consistency was the important focus. He was considering a vote towards scenario number one. He noted the importance of putting something out there to which every one could rely upon. Commissioner Schmidt agreed with Commissioner Tabing. He also agreed with many of his colleague's points. He noted he was leaning towards scenario number one. He Page 17 of 24