PC 082819 - Laserfiche WebLink

moved forward with their PUD development standards and design, which left the remaining two properties as stand alone. Commissioner O'Connor inquired how many units per acre are allowed. Ms. Hagen confirmed eight or more units per acre are allowed. For the neighboring development on Rachael Place, they allow 15 units per acre. Commissioner Brown asked and confirmed the proposed project is at nine units per acre. He suggested that if less density than that were approved, it might be considered a taking. Chair Allen asked for a slide of Exhibit D, showing the project comparison. Ms. Hagen went over the project comparison sheet and explained the different density ranges based upon the zoning. Commissioner Brown explained, for the audience's perspective, the zoning and project density and what is allowable. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if this project wasn't allowed or were to be denied whether it could result in legal action. Commissioner Brown stated his understanding that if the Commission were to deny the project or approve it below the minimum density, it could result in legal action. Commissioner Brown expressed some uncertainty about being ready to make a recommendation on the project at this meeting, based upon what he has read in the agenda report and what has been expressed during public comment, although he supported efficient decision-making. He admitted he has not visited the site to view the story poles. He also referenced the windows and privacy concerns and invited discussion among the remaining Commissioners as to whether a decision should be postponed, and for additional discussion of those two items, if the Commission felt they had not yet been properly discussed. Commissioner O'Connor said he agrees that the trees on the eastern side would be beneficial as larger trees. He deferred to staff about the windows and questioned the need to postpone the decision. Mr. Dolan recognized that it seemed the Commission's and neighbors' issues involve the view to the east. He recognized the Commission's involvement with rear-facing windows but explained that he has never had the Commission address the front-facing windows because they do not address the same concerns surrounding privacy. Commissioner Brown stated this project is a 90-degree angle to the property on the east, which is why it had been raised as an issue; he will leave it to his fellow Commissioners as to whether 24-inch box trees sufficiently address the privacy concern. Commissioner Pace inquired as to the distance between the front of the homes constructed on the property to the east. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 16 August 28, 2019 2019 standards. As a PUD, development standards are established on a case-by-case basis, through project review. Staff provided a chart of other properties with similar densities within the DSP that have been approved in this area. As proposed, the project would have a 10-foot rear setback from the garage and the habitable space on top of the garage will be required to be set back 15 feet. There is a five-foot separation between the side yard setback, which is consistent with adjacent neighbors, with the exception of the homes on Rachael Place, which are set back a Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 16 August 28, 2019