18 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the existing second parcel could have a 1,100-square-foot second unit, Ms. Harryman indicated that would not be the case. She noted that the Second Unit Ordinance would be used as the standard, which had its own requirements regarding setbacks and maximums. She noted that it would be unlikely given the size of the lot. It would be possible to meet the setbacks and size requirements. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox's suggestion that a variance may be applicable, Ms. Harryman replied that would be a separate application. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mike Carey, applicant, noted that the property had contained two units for a long time; the front house was built around the year1890, and the back house was built between 1948 and1950. He noted that they had been separate units for a long time and that they had separate water meters. He stated that the second house was never built as a second unit and was always existing. He displayed the site plan and pointed out the location of the homes. He noted that two families purchased the property approximately seven years ago with the ultimate intent to have a house for each family rather than owning a rental property with two units. He displayed and described the neighboring properties, including afive-unit PUD. He emphasized that this was a straight application with no other projects such as a conversion or a second unit being planned. He distributed the County tax roll, which identified the land use per the County, prior to the City taking over was [ 1,100-multi-2-4 single-family homes], with two units. He noted that a neighboring project was also between five and seven years old, with four brand-new attached homes, set up duplex style. He noted that they were larger units with two-car garages and a brick paver driveway. He noted that those units were not for sale. He added that they planned on having continued ownership of the subject site at this time. Mr. Carey noted that with respect to the property to the right (216 and 220), that applicant had come in with a complete project. He noted that these units were already maxed out. He displayed the existing homes on his site on the overhead screen. He noted that due to the 11-foot ceilings, dormers could be added. He noted that the existing home was tall by design, farmhouse-style, and believed that adding dormers would improve the appearance. He noted that there were old and new two-story homes along First and Second Streets on Kottinger Drive, handled in a reasonable way through the design guidelines and was sensitive to the neighbors. He added that the Downtown was not aone-story district. He stated that he believed the house next door was maxed out on the site, using the [7,100]-square-foot lot. Their proposed new lots were approximately the same size as the lots on First and Second Streets, which were all approximately 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Fox noted that with respect to the existing front home, the existing development standard identified a maximum building height of 30 feet, with an asterisk that read, "Measured from the lowest finished grade to the highest ridge point, including all chimney projections." She inquired what the existing building height would be if dormers were added. Mr. Carey replied that it would be the same height of 21-22 feet. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether staff recommended astaff- level design review, Ms. Decker confirmed that was correct. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, Apri123, 2008 Page 3 of 7