PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox noted that the floor area ratio (FAR) was approximately 70 percent and inquired whether there were other 70-percent FAR's in the Downtown area. She further inquired whether that would push the envelope. Ms. Soo stated that she did not recall any 70-percent FAR's Downtown but that she had not performed the research to verify that information. Commissioner Narum noted that this was a private road and inquired what criteria were used to determine what constituted a private road and a public road. Ms. Decker replied that the determination of whether a road was public or private was based on how the structural section may be developed and whether or not the City or the applicant may request to have it be public or private. She stated that there maybe subdivisions with 28-foot or 32-foot road widths that comply with the structural section, but the development may request that it be private. She noted that in this case, the width of the road was less than any of the City's standards, and, thus, it was considered more of a driveway than a street. She added that from the City's viewpoint, it would be preferable to have it be a private road and to serve more as an access drive than an actual street. With regard to the lot on the east side, Commissioner Narum inquired about the setbacks of the townhouses (Lots 9-ll) from the property line. Ms. Decker believed that the rear yard setback was three feet. Commissioner Narum inquired about the setback on the adjoining property and inquired whether there were six to seven feet between the houses to the rear and what lay behind them. Ms. Decker noted that staff would confirm those dimensions when the project returns to the Planning Commission. She noted that it appeared from the aerial that it looked to be approximately 15 to 20 feet to the property line but that it was not necessarily an accurate representation. Commissioner Olson inquired about the rough distance from the railroad tracks to Units 6, 7, and 8. Ms. Decker noted that it was approximately three feet to the property line but was approximately 53 feet to the centerline of the railroad tracks. Commissioner Olson inquired whether that was roughly equivalent to the property just to the east. Ms. Decker confirmed that was the case and that there was uniformity in terms of the distance between the tracks and the developments. Commissioner O'Connor noted that he saw two floor plans and had thought there were three floor plans. He noted that they were listed as Residence 1 and Residence 2 twice but with different square footages and different layouts. Chair Blank noted that the Commission could check with the applicant for clarification on the architecture. Commissioner Fox noted that in looking at Concept C, the plan view of the landscaping, it appeared to look different than the actual DR-2 site plan. She noted that it appeared that the fingers were tapered back and inquired whether Concept C was meant to be the same as the DR- 2 site plan or whether it was the original concept. Chair Blank noted that the dates on the plans were 10/07 and 3/08 and suggested that the Commission ask that question of the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 3 of 26