21 ATTACHMENT 6 AND 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

plans that you're looking at tonight so that it's clear that those are the ones that can go up to 45 %, 1 think would be the safest way to do that. So 11 of the lots would go up to 45% and everything else would be able to go up to 40 %, and that'll give folks some flexibility over time to adjust their properties and it achieves the same thing. You're getting the same development plan. The average is whatever the average will be, but we have two maximum FARs so that folks who come in know that if they're a specific lot, they get up to 45% and other folks get up to 40 %. Does that work for you Jeff? Schroeder: You said the lots that are plotted that way .... you're just talking about specific lots that couldn't go over 40 %? Beaudin: That's right, I think we set two maximums -we set a maximum of 40% and a maximum of 45% and frankly, any change that results in a couple of hundred square feet isn't going to be something that will make or break the character of the neighborhood over time. So if somebody had 43% today and wanted to go to 45 %, they'd go through the same design review process as anyone else in the community when they want to do an addition. The planner at the counter doesn't have to calculate the average for the neighborhood or try and figure out if someone slipped an addition in or have to say `no' every time because someone wants to change their property. It just sets a maximum FAR which is a consistent approach to this kind of thing. Chair Ritter: How many did you say, five? Schroeder: It might be helpful that instead of trying to figure that out right now is you condition that and we'll work with you on which house. Chair Ritter: I would agree. I don't think we want to pick the lots. I'd rather the developer pick them. Commissioner O'Connor: So what you're really saying is some of these larger FARs, they're not going to be able to add onto their house. Beaudin: Exactly. There are some that are shown with a bonus room at the maximum and they'll have what they have because they're at the maximum at 45 %. Most of the lots that were shown here, there would be 11 of them that go over the 40% so I would say set a maximum of 45 %, and there would be the rest that would be 40% or less per maximum FAR. And we don't have to say 11 lots. You know, it could just be the lots that are over and we work with the applicant to figure that out. Commissioner Allen: So where I come out is that it doesn't exactly accomplish my purpose of being able to put it on a table. I mean it doesn't because more than half are that way. However, with that said, I think I can buy into the project. I'm okay with someone else making a motion on this one because my principle is, when we can, to try to design a project, unless there's extenuating circumstances of which I don't see this being one, to meet the General Plan standards per what is said in our Code about what should be considered in a PUD which is to be consistent with neighboring properties and with the City's General Plan. So I understand and can buy into this being the end of the lane. It's the end of the lane. It's the last project in the area and therefore it's not a standard and I hope never to see it as a standard for going above the FAR. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2016 Page 20 of 46