PC 082416 - Laserfiche WebLink

unit and the neighbors to the back. And, so from a community perspective it strikes me that a better use of that sort of limited land would be to create more setback in the front than the rear. I'm not suggesting that the square footage of the units themselves be adjusted because that would be a major redesign and I just don't think that's appropriate, so I raise that as a comment and as probably no more than direction to staff to continue to consider that issue and see, in cooperation with the applicant, if there's some movement that could be made on the setback on St. John. Commissioner O'Connor: So on the second item, I would disagree. With the length of the planting area and the size of the sidewalk, I do think we get the setback to the building. The technicality is where the City property line is and where the developer's property line is, but it does set back. I would rather not infringe on the rear neighbors. I mean if we really felt that strongly about moving back further, I would say it has to come off the sides. Of course, that would be something that should have been discussed a very long time ago. But, I do think the way the City property, the planter area and sidewalk is, I think we have the look and the feel of the larger setback even though it may not be the developer's property. Chair Ritter: I tend to agree with Commissioner O'Connor. Just looking at the pictures, the front with the trees too, in first looking at the slide up there, I like the dormer idea but there's still quite a bit up there and it's on the back side. When you look at the front view, hopefully there's going to be trees growing up in that area so I'm still kind of in line with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Brown: I'll just add two things. First of all, I appreciate Commissioner Nagler's focus around the aesthetics. My question on the dormer idea is wouldn't that increase height when we're trying to stay below 30 feet? Beaudin: So the dormer would literally pop into the existing roof structure. It wouldn't rise above it; it would be within it. Dormers come in all shapes and sizes. You'll see them on traditional homes like this with a long flat roof with several windows underneath. Sometimes they just pop out with another gable on it. Sometimes they're round and they could be within the roof. Commissioner Brown: Yeah, I'm not opposed to that, but my concern is in keeping with the width of the other ones on the front, they'd have to be fairly wide. I'll leave that to staff's discretion, but it would be good to break that up, but I'm not passionate one way or the other. Then on the second point, I would tend to agree with Commissioner Ritter and O'Connor. Buildings 7, 8, 9 and 10 are essentially street facing with no backyard, and then 1 through 6 have no front with a backyard. So to get a larger front on 7, 8, 9 and 10 by taking away from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 I'm not sure I would agree. Like I said, I appreciate the intent of the suggestion. Commissioner Nagler: So let me again just say I fully appreciate comments, but if we're looking at sort of the community impact of a project, I would think we would consider sort of the greater good or where are the impacts felt and I'm not being insensitive to the neighbors in the back but I'm just making sure, planting aside, that there is that sense of it being a community friendly aesthetic in the front is a greater good than the proximity of the back of the buildings to a handful of neighbors. The only thing again I would say PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 24, 2016 Page 12 of 39