PC 05/27/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

requirements for street dedication and widening and for a bus turn-out which have reduced the developable land on the parcel. This has, in turn, caused some constraints as far as access to the site and location of the structures. Mr. Iserson also stated that due to the rising parking concerns in the area, staff has recommended one off-street, guest pazking space for each unit on the site. However, he pointed out a concern with the size of the parking space on lot 1 and stated that in order to make it larger, the house setback on the parcel would have to be moved back slightly. A condition of approval has been included to address this issue. In addition, staff wanted to insure that the homes did not have a lot of garage frontage on the public streets and, therefore, worked with the applicant to position the homes on the site with the least amount of garage visibility, including side entry garages on two of the units. Mr. Iserson further reported that lots 2 and 3 would have a shazed driveway easement, and staff has also included a condition requiring that gazages be available for pazking at all times. Also, no boats or campers would be allowed to park on the site, and the guest parking spaces on lots 2 and 3 could only be used by those residents and their guests. Mr. Iserson described the proposed architecture in detail, making note of the special features and materials. Staff feels that the applicant has made a substantial effort to design the homes to fit in well with the characteristic of the downtown neighborhood. Overall, staff is very pleased with the azchitectural design. The landscaping plan was also described, and Mr. Iserson reported that the - applicant will provide street trees and landscaping in all azeas of the site visible from the streets. In addition, the applicant will install a solid wood fence along each property line that would be 4'S" high with 1'S" of lattice on the top, and a white picket fence would be installed along the street side of the homes and along the northern property line of lot 1. Mr. Iserson presented a colors and materials boazd to the Commission for review. In summary, he stated that staff is supportive of the project and feels the rezoning would be in conformance with the General Plan. In addition, staff feels the density is appropriate and is less than what is allowed under that zoning. Also, staff is pleased with the azchitectural design and feels the application provides a good opportunity to provide housing close to Downtown. Therefore, staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions in Exhibit B. Commissioner Roberts asked who would monitor to insure that residents are using their garages for parking. Mr. Iserson stated that those types of conditions aze usually monitored by the development's Homeowners Association. Since there is no Homeowners Association in this development, staff is hoping it will be aself-enforcing condition. However, he noted that if staff received complaints relating to the parking, then the City, at that point, could contact the property owners and require compliance. In addition, the gazage pazking requirement would be included as a deed restriction. Also, in response to an additional question by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson stated that shared driveways are not uncommon in that azea, and he has heazd no complaints regarding a similar existing situation for the two homes next door on Kottinger. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 27, 1998