CCMIN060308 - Laserfiche WebLink

looks at the level at which it can be restored and match the intent of the downtown architectural style. Mr. Carey said they have no plans to demolish it at all and just want to accomplish the lot split. Vice Mayor Thorne confirmed with Ms. Decker that the houses on each side of the property are under a PUD and they would need to do a PUD modification in order for them to be altered. Rebecca Roberts said she has watched many changes over the last 15 years since she and her husband have lived at 216 Kottinger Drive, agrees with the 5 foot easement and said they do not like it, they agree the homes need improvement, however, they supported Planning Commission's conditions. They would like aone-story level to be maintained for reasons of: 1) blockage and diminishment of natural light to their heritage tree; 2) a tunnel effect from larger homes and 3) added parking. Murray Dixon said he lives at 220 Kottinger which is located behind -216 Kottinger and is accessible by a driveway. He believes atwo-story would not fit in with the streetscape, said he plans to install solar heating which requires light onto his property, and supports the decision of the Planning Commission. The reasons the Planning Commission decisions were made were to maintain control in the future and not leave it to staff's discretion, which would speed up the application and not require hearings. Michael O'Callaghan said he does not believe the Planning Commission or the City Council necessarily needs to implement restrictions, as there are regulations in place for staff to administer and good design guidelines in place and supported staff's recommendation. While he has concerns for neighbors, he did not believe the FAR should be restricted, the area is a high density area, thinks the height should be allowed as recommended by staff, and based on his experience he did not believe there were solar or tunneling effect issues. Mike Carey, applicant, presented an outline of the plot plan, said the footprint next door was done through the PUD process, the heavy line is the property line as surveyed and it is actually closer than the fence is. He said they are off as far as 24 inches by the red line and then it tapers down to 6 inches in the back. The reason the PUD had a no-improvement restriction is because it is maximized out with a complete project. He said the fence is 2 feet from his property, and they were shocked by this; however, they do not plan on doing anything about it. The neighbors also have additions built on the fence, they had two houses; one brand new and he still has his existing rights as a future homeowner to go back to 30 feet high and a 35% FAR. He said they are in favor of working within the guidelines on the two lots as recommended by staff or the most recently approved PUD 61, and he distributed the exhibits of their approval. He asked the Council to keep in mind the houses have not been updated for 50 years and in the spirit of consistency and fairness, he believes the property has a right to a 30 foot height limit and a 40% FAR and he urged the Council to support staff's recommendations or the recently approved PUD 61. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. Councilmember McGovern supported restricting the height of the building because she thought 30 feet was too much compared to the size of the house next to it and a 35% FAR. To her, if building up, land is saved around the house. But, if they are worried about a tree, she would not worry about a house expanding towards the tree's root line and would much rather have the house going up. She said she believes the older house deserves some significance and should City Council Minutes 10 June 3, 2008