Laserfiche WebLink
Natalie Amos presented the staff report and described the background, scope, and layout, <br />of the proposal. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Michael Carey, applicant, noted that the project is next to a former gas station to the left <br />and a five-plex with units behind them to the right, with a strip retail mall, Pleasant Plaza <br />across the street. He indicated that they are open to suggestions for various different <br />house styles and parking, including variations in garages on the side of the house. He <br />added that they would like to remove the unit above the garage of existing house and <br />have only a one-car garage, with an office space above it, behind the main house to <br />provide more space for the other units. He requested direction regarding attached versus <br />detached units. <br /> <br />Charles Huff, 30 West Neal Street, stated the largest concern of the owners is attached <br />versus detached units. He noted that attached units such as duplexes and townhomes <br />would provide larger green areas, but four separate individual units would be affordable <br />by design and would provide homebuyers with a sense of true individual ownership that <br />they can landscape and add to on their own as opposed to having a homeowners <br />association. He added that condominiums and townhomes are generally located outside <br />the historic Downtown area because existing land use constraints and parking <br />requirements make clustered units viable projects for developers. He noted that the <br />proposed project is in keeping with the theme emphasized in the Downtown Design <br />Guidelines for individual, small single-family homes that resemble the scale and design <br />of historic homes in the Downtown. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox noted that this project is much like the project that the Commission <br />considered at the last meeting. Mr. Huff replied that the plans presented are computer- <br />generated conceptual plans of attached units and are not the actual architectural designs <br />for the site. He noted that he had recently joined the design team and had not had the <br />opportunity to provide an alternate design. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank indicated that he understood the Downtown plan calls for small <br />individual homes, but it is also possible to have attached homes there that would fit in <br />with the Downtown character. He expressed concern about limited parking in the <br />Downtown and would like to maximize the amount of parking and green to the extent <br />possible without getting in the way of development. <br /> <br />Mr. Huff pointed out two things: first, that homeowners desire to have their own homes; <br />and second, that attached homes do not increase the green; it simply takes the green in <br />between the detached homes and puts them together to the side as one mass. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor inquired what was envisioned to be on the other side of the <br />garage on the lower level where there is no garage door and a staircase in front of it. <br />Mr. Huff replied that it could possibly be storage space. He added that the final plan will <br />be different in nature, scale, and roofline from what is presented here. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 2007 Page 30 of 35 <br /> <br /> <br />