18 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Steve Roberts noted that his wife Rebecca had filled out a speaker card, but was unable to stay. He noted that they had lived in their current home for 15 years and had seen the construction of the buildings to their right. He noted that those homes created a huge wall, but they had been able to live with it. He supported the proposed split of the property as well as the improvements being proposed. He opposed the possibility of a future owner building atwo-story home, which would make him feel as if he lived in a tunnel with two two-story homes on either side. He indicated that he would like to maintain some feeling of space and would like to maintain one-story homes on that lot. Murray Dixon noted that he lived within PUD-91-9 and, while he was not opposed to a lot split per se, he stated that he believed this was the appropriate time to limit the height of the structures. He had also experienced the four two-story structures next door, which he stated were nice but were also well above 30 feet in height. He noted that he installed trees along the property line to block their view and protect their privacy. He noted that their light was also diminished and that they were very concerned about two stories on the other side, creating an inability to go to solar heating. He noted that the street in front of 216 and 204 was a red no-parking zone and that developing substantially larger structures would create a larger family size and more automobiles in the area. He noted that they already experienced parking difficulties on Second Street and Kottinger Drive due to the large two-story structure to their right, which were actually apartments with two-car garages used for storage. He noted that the tenants parked their cars on Second Street, eliminating parking for those residents. He noted that the intersection was very busy because of the very long light at Kottinger Drive and First Street. He stated that he believed any increase in population would become a safety issue at that intersection. He stated that he believed a lot split was appropriate but that this was the time to stipulate that additional expansion be allowed at 25 percent and not 40 percent. He understood that the tree at 216 was considered to be a heritage tree and that a large part of the tree overhangs the property line of 204. He noted that he believed that would become an issue and that he felt that the best result would be to limit the PUD to a one-story development. Judy Dixon spoke in support of many renovation projects done by the applicants throughout the City. She believed the homes should remain one-story and cited the parking congestion, heritage trees, and sunshine and air flow issues, which would be affected by a two-story home. She expressed concern about the trees. She noted that the two-story homes in the area were built on larger lots, which made them fit in better than on a smaller lot. She expressed concern about a tunnel effect with two two-story homes on either side of their home. She noted that the adjacent lots would allow only aone-story home and that the neighbors were very concerned about the possibility of two-story homes being built. Mr. Carey noted that the residents of 216 Kottinger Drive had requested the City to remove a parking space by painting the curb red in front of their house at 216 Kottinger Drive because it was difficult to back out onto Kottinger Drive. He noted that there was a turnaround on their lot as required. He noted that the previous neighbors had requested that a parking spot in front be removed, although residents of Second Street did not want it removed. The City agreed to the request. He stated that he wished to clarify that all parking was on-site and that they did not support aone-story restriction. He noted that there were two-story homes on First and Second EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2008 Page 4 of 7