PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Blank noted that staff had posed seven questions for this workshop. Will the proposed density be acceptable? Commissioner Narum noted that this was a difficult question and that she liked the idea of creating infill housing. She stated that she believed that the density was too high and was one or two houses too many and that the space should be used for some parking and some kind of tot lot/climbing apparatus. Commissioner Olson noted that when he looked down Stanley Boulevard, he was surprised that the density was as low as it was on this project. He believed that the project next door to the east had a much higher density. He noted that the project at Rachel Place appeared to have a much higher density as well. He stated that he believed the proposed density was fine. Commissioner Fox did not believe the proposed density was acceptable. She would like to see ten units, ten guest spaces, and a common area with a tot lot. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he believed that the adjacent development to the east had about 12 units. Like Commissioner Olson, he was not sure that the density was a big issue and that more parking should be created if it fit on the lot. He indicated that he would also like to see one or two units less but did not believe density was the big issue. He was more concerned about the size of the homes and the FAR and suggested that if 14 units were to be retained in the development, the square footage should be examined. Chair Blank indicated that he believed that part of the problem was the order in which the questions were posed. He noted that the FAR, open space, and setbacks would all drive density. He agreed with Commissioners Narum and O'Connor that given the current proposal, aone- to two-unit reduction would be appropriate. He noted that if the FAR or the layout were different, it might be a different issue. He noted that as Commissioner Olson pointed out, there were other areas that appeared to be just as dense but the architect did something else to make them more acceptable. 2. Would the proposed site plan be acceptable? Commissioner O'Connor noted that he did not have a problem with the site plan specifically. He noted that if the size of the house remained, the setback should be bigger and that with the site plan and house size, the three- to five-foot rear setback may become a problem. He stated that he did not have a problem with the tot lot or open space issues and added that this was a court of houses. He noted that he lived in a court of houses in a much larger development and the closest tot lot was a 15-minute walk. He stated that he did not believe every development needed a tot lot or a big open space. He was more concerned about how much space there was between the homes and especially with the rear setbacks. Chair Blank suggested handling site plans and setbacks together. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 13 of 26