CCMIN090611 - Laserfiche WebLink

• An additional 2 guest parking spaces were added. • An older home sits on the property and the proposal has always been to demolish it. Certain members of the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the community that want the home maintained for historic preservation. The historic evaluation completed did not identify the home as something of significant architectural value or historical significance, and the applicant's proposal remains to demolish the home. • Regarding density, the applicant was asked to consider reducing the number of units, and as stated previously, one unit was removed from the project. • House sizes and FAR's: There are 3 models with 2 different sizes based on the exterior architectural treatments. Generally, models are 1,599 square feet to 1,920 square feet which is the same size reviewed in the past. The developer had reduced the floor sizes in the earlier dialogue at the Planning Commission level. The smallest units were reduced only 10 feet but the largest units reduced by almost 250 square feet. All are two stories tall and of modest high, from 26 to 28 feet. • There was a request to explore the setbacks. One setback exists along the eastern property line up against the townhome development and some felt these were a little too close. There have also been some earlier changes with setting setbacks at 10 feet, but otherwise, there are no other changes. • The applicant has agreed to a homeowners association and has requested a unique condition of approval relating to providing a tot lot for young children living in the development. The applicant maintains they believe this will not be their primary occupant in the development and asked to have some flexibility on installing a lot. They are willing to bond for the cost of installing it but waiting until 11 of the 13 units are occupied, and then have a vote of the HOA as to what it wants. Mr. Dolan clarified with Vice Mayor Cook-Kallio that the area is approximately 3,500 square feet and a BBQ or picnic area could alternatively be installed instead of a tot lot. Councilmember McGovern noted that in the minutes of the Planning Commission there was a question by Commissioners about whether or not, since there are 13 lots total and they want a vote of the HOA by the 11th lot, that the builder would get two votes and most likely these votes might impact the decision. She asked if the City would have to allow them the two votes and/or whether or not the City could restrict the votes to those who purchased the properties. Mr. Dolan said this could be set up in any manner, and the key is to provide flexibility for those who move in. • Adequate parking: By providing the common open space instead of one of the lots, the applicant was able to add the number of guest spaces. In general, the development will 'live' a lot like a townhouse development. Even though yards are separated, it is much like townhome living. Given this environment, there is a fair amount of parking. Each unit would have 2 spaces in the garage, no parking in the private street, but on the two car pad in front of the garage, and then 7 guest parking spaces. There are a total of 5.4 spaces per unit compared to 2 spaces per unit next door. • Tree removal and mitigation was a big issue in all discussions. The primary trees of concern were three large trees towards the front of the property. The applicant was asked at every meeting whether or not those could be preserved. The answer is that they do not want to give up the land area in order to save the trees, but they did identify 2 other trees on the edge of City Council Minutes Page 5 of 16 September 6, 2011