PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor did not have a problem with the site layout, but was concerned with the proximity to the property line. Commissioner Fox stated that she did not like the site plan and believed there should be a tot lot because these were smaller houses. She added that in an infill development, the houses themselves did not have enough open space, with the exception of a dining table and a grill. She indicated that if there were no tot lot or open space, the children would play in the cul-de-sac, which served as a fire turnaround, and she did not want to see the kids playing in the street. She would like to see a common open space on the site. She was concerned that there was no sidewalk within the development and noted that there should be a sidewalk, even if it may not be a standard sidewalk, so people would not walk on the road. She was concerned about the number of houses as well as the proposed site plan with the fingers. She noted that the situation could obscure visibility of pedestrians and that she would like to see them scaled back so that when the pedestrians were walking, there would not be any visibility problems with no sidewalks or any hazards with the constructs near the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Olson noted that the site plan was acceptable and that with respect to density, it was the number of units that would drive the number of vehicles on this property. He noted that the development just east would have more vehicles associated with it than this one would. He stated that he believed this development could sell out to older people who have decided to downsize; in this case, he agreed with Commissioner O'Connor that a tot lot may not be necessary in a development like this. He indicated that he liked the proposed site plan. Commissioner Narum noted that she liked the site plan as well and believed it was creative. She stated that the rear yard setback should be larger on the east side and that she thought it was not fair to the neighbors on the east side, who bought their home with an open lot, to have houses right up against their lot line. She noted that the setback should be at least ten feet. She indicated that she liked the layout and concurred with Commissioner Olson's point that if the development were to be made smaller, the house size could be the same. She noted that was a market-driven question for the builder, as opposed to the Planning Commission dictating that the houses should be smaller. She noted that was a decision for the developer and that the Commission should not tell him what that should be. She noted, however, that there was some give-and-take, that either the houses should be smaller or the number of units should be reduced. She noted that she tended to favor tot lots or places for children to play, but she did see children playing in the court and she did not object to that. She noted that her own children had done the same. Chair Blank noted that as proposed, the site plan was fine, but that the site plan and density were somewhat related. He recalled his earlier comment that the homes should be smaller or that there should be fewer units. He did not obj ect to the setbacks between the houses and noted that he had lived six feet from a neighbor for many years which worked out fine for him. He shared Commissioner Narum's concern about the rear yard setbacks that they were too tight. Regarding the tot lot, he noted that it was a companion question to the open space consideration. He added that the rear yard setbacks were more critical than the side yard setbacks. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 14 of 26