Laserfiche WebLink
166 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed <br /> this lot regarding it being parkland. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta did not believe that the Park and Recreation <br /> Commission reviewed this project but she would check. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler believed that the Council had not preconceived a <br /> project on this site or considered this project a "done deal". It <br /> is important that this project be looked at as any other one would <br /> be. He felt that it was also important to work towards affordable <br /> housing. He believed that this site was an appropriate place for <br /> these units to be built. Mr. Butler pointed out that it had not <br /> been until this level of detail became available that Council could <br /> decide whether or not it is appropriate for this neighborhood. He <br /> reiterated that seven units is not an undue impact on the area and <br /> that it is a worthy goal that Council is trying to achieve with <br /> these units. The density is not excessive for the area. He <br /> preferred this proposed plan as opposed to what was proposed before <br /> under the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner agreed that this was an appropriate site for this <br /> type of housing. Although she liked the previous plan which <br /> included the court, she understood why it was changed and agreed it <br /> was a better idea. She did not think the number of units was <br /> inappropriate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commended the Rotary for proposing such a project, <br /> but could not support this project. He felt that it was the right <br /> type of project to be considering. He was concerned with the <br /> parking plan for the seven units. He believed that the problem <br /> could be solved by reducing the project to five units and having an <br /> inside court. He asked what the legal ramifications were of having <br /> a homeowners association. He agreed that a three way stop sign at <br /> Palomino and Concord should be placed at that corner. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that the real issue is design rather than <br /> zoning. The concern is looking at the difference between having a <br /> five or seven unit project and what the objectives are for this <br /> site. The objective for this proposal is to create as many <br /> affordable housing units as possible. She did not believe that one <br /> or two units would generate a traffic impact that is measurable. <br /> She believed that the conditions listed in the staff report <br /> addressed the concerns of the neighbors. She commended the Rotary <br /> and supported getting the maximum benefit out of the project for <br /> the community. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer also commended the Rotary. He did not believe <br /> that reducing this project by two units would reduce the traffic <br /> impact on the area. He preferred having the fronts of the houses <br /> face the street rather than the back yards. <br /> <br /> 11/3/92 8 <br /> <br /> <br />