18 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 6 Item 5.a., PUD-73, Steve Maestas and Mike Carey Application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning of an approximately .22-acre parcel from the RM-4,000 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to the PUD-HDR (Planned Unit Development -High Density Residential) District located at 204 Kottinger Drive. Ms. Decker presented the staff report and summarized the background, scope, and layout of the proposed project. Commissioner O'Connor noted the presence of the corrected memo on the lot sizes and stated the he believed what Ms. Decker displayed on the screen was the same as the original staff report. Ms. Decker noted that the corrected lot sizes were not related to the project being considered. She added that the revisions were provided as a clarification to the staff report for PUD-91-9. She stated that staff wished to make the correction if there was a question with respect to the addition. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the table that was shown on the previous slide was correct, Ms. Decker confirmed that they were correct. She noted that they were the square footages of Parcel A and Parcel B which is under consideration by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fox noted that she called Rosalind Rondash, Assistant Planner, and Julie Harryman the previous day about this project. She noted that there were two addresses contained within the memo as well as two County Assessor numbers. She inquired whether the two units were counted as one or two housing units in the housing cap. Ms. Decker inquired whether Ms. Rondash had responded to that question. Commissioner Fox replied that she stated that she was not sure at that point, and during her conversation with Ms. Harryman, she noted that the applicant had indicated that they wanted to split the lot so the units would be counted as two units under the housing cap. Ms. Decker noted that she did not discuss this particular issue with Ms. Rondash and stated that it would be considered under the housing cap because neither unit was considered a second residential unit, which was exempt under the housing cap. She noted that they had been in existence for some time and were counted as two units. Commissioner Narum requested clarification of the floor area ratios (FAR)s for PUD-91-09 and PUD-95-O1, and noted that she believed she heard different numbers than were cited in the staff report. Ms. Decker replied that she drew a comparison of the historical information for PUD-91-09 and PUD-95-O1, where the FARs were less than the 40 percent proposed on this site. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding the definition of "architecturally significant" versus "architecturally insignificant," Ms. Decker replied that an architecturally significant structure would be considered to have components that are unique, that identify a EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, Apri123, 2008 Page 1 of 7