18 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Streets, on 50-foot by100-foot lots, except the corner lots, and that they were approximately the same size as the subject sites. He noted that they had no plans to expand on the site at this time. He requested that the Planning Commission ask the owners of the adjacent lot if it would be acceptable to build out in a one-story fashion with the same setbacks that they must adhere to on their lot. He noted that the house at 216 Kottinger Drive had been expanded to the maximum one-story footprint with nearly zero setback, which explained the one-story restriction at that time to him. He noted that all of the windows were one foot off the fenceline and that they looked into his property. He added that the tree touched the gutter and cantilevered over his property. He noted that they were prepared to work with the City and the neighbors. He noted that there were no restrictions on two-story construction on Downtown lots and that every applicant must work through the process with respect to screening, setbacks, dormers, and heights. He added that he believed it was still appropriate to allow a second story in order to maintain greater setbacks between the properties. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox inquired what kind of maximum building height would exist if there were to be a hypothetical one-story restriction. Ms. Decker replied that the maximum height would be between 22 and 25 feet in ridge height. She noted that there were many examples within the City, with some single-story residences taller than that. Chair Blank stated that he would like to fix the sprinkler language and that he did not feel comfortable imposing aone-story restriction at this time. He noted that may be addressed at the design review stage and that a public hearing would be ensured. He suggested that in the future, there may be more tolerance for an attractive two-story home or that the neighbors would never want atwo-story home. He did not wish to limit it to one-story, which may handcuff a future Planning Commission. Commissioner Fox noted that when taller buildings in Downtown were being considered, the Commission requested a visual of the streetscape. She added that in this instance, a streetscape was not available. Chair Blank stated that he believed that would be displayed in a design review. Commissioner Fox noted that if the Planning Commission were to theoretically restrict the homes to a single-story building height, the applicants could return with a PUD modification and a design review to give the public an opportunity to examine it. Ms. Decker clarified that the Planning Commission was not taking action but was making a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission's recommendation may vary from staff's recommendation, and its recommendation would be described and discussed within the staff report to the City Council and would be considered then. With respect to the issue of a PUD modification, she noted that anyone within a PUD may apply for a modification. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, Apri123, 2008 Page 5 of 7