PC 012214 - Laserfiche WebLink

4. Is the revised dwelling unit with living units over parking by Buildings A and B acceptable? Chair Olson stated that if one story is eliminated in the back on the south end, those units will have to be put somewhere to accommodate the required 30 units per acre. Commissioner Posson agreed. Commissioner O'Connor also agreed. He added that it is not what he desires, but it looks like it is the only place, if they are to be moved off the south side, which is a big gain for everyone. 5. Would the Planning Commission support the requested exception if the project were to move forward as proposed? Chair Olson noted that the exception is the southeast portion of Building B as set back approximately five feet eight inches from the back of the sidewalk, not meeting the required eight -foot setback. He stated that his sense is that this is a limitation due to the geometry and the layout. Commissioner Posson stated that he did not see any explanation on why the eight- foot setback was not feasible. Commissioner O'Connor stated that parallel parking is being added. Ms. Soo confirmed that this is for the parallel parking provided on the entry street. Commissioner Posson inquired what the effect would be if the parallel parking is not provided. Commissioner O'Connor replied that the parking requirements would not be met. Ms. Stern said yes. She added that the idea is to create a street coming into the project, and the parallel parking helps to do that. Commissioner Posson inquired if there were no other alternatives to meet the parking requirements. Ms. Stern replied that in that location, there were no other alternatives than to eliminate the on- street parking. Commissioner Posson inquired if staff is supportive of that exemption. Mr. Dolan replied that staff considers it to be pretty minor. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 22, 2014 Page 14 of 22