PC 042308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Narum noted that her initial thought was to restrict the building height to one story, but she would be comfortable with an attic at 21 feet for the house in front. She indicated that she was not comfortable with allowing heights higher than what already existed and with the lots on either side being conditioned that no additions could be made. She noted that PUD-95-O1 had FARs of 20.7 percent and 24.4 percent and that she was not comfortable with the possibility that a 40 percent FAR would open the door to a second story. She noted that any of the lots may come back for a modification, with photos and other visuals, and that she would rather restrict the building to the existing height rather than restricting the number of stories. She stated that she would like to see the FARs lower and more in line than what was on either side of the two parcels. She indicated her support for the lot split and stated that she believed creating two covered spaces would be helpful and would not cause parking problems. She noted that Condition No. 7 in PUD-95-O1 stated that boats, campers, and trailers shall be prohibited from being parked on-site and inquired whether that could be included as a condition to ensure that the parking was used for auto parking. Ms. Decker confirmed that was possible. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he did not necessarily believe that the Commission should discuss what happened on the two other lot splits next door to this prof ect. He noted that there had been more dialogue about the adjacent properties than about the project itself. He noted that he looked at the neighborhood as a whole and would not want to restrict this prof ect to a single story or existing height limits. He noted that restrictions did not exist for the rest of the historic area, although this was outside the historic area by one lot. He noted that when he visited the site with the applicant, he noticed that they maximized the lot from side to side. He stated that he would rather utilize space going up rather than consuming the side-to-side land on a lot, resulting in no visual open space between the homes. He noted that the existence of space between the homes was better than having one-story homes built right to the lot line. He indicated that he would rather not impose the restrictions and leave that question for a future design review. He noted that there were many homes on Second Street with 5,000-square-foot lots with 2,000-square-foot homes and a FAR of more than 40 percent. He stated that he did not want to impose those restrictions at this time and would rather leave it to a design review. Chair Blank noted that he was torn because he was reluctant to put a restriction on a prof ect where the same restriction did not apply elsewhere. He added that he also understood the desire to see the restrictions and noted that his goal was to see whatever came forward on this lot come before the Planning Commission. He wanted to ensure that the process would be vetted and that there would be visuals and streetscapes as well as an analysis of other impacts discussed. He indicated that he would like the standard sprinkler language to be included in the conditions of approval. He added that he supported the lot split. Commissioner Pearce noted that she supported the lot split and had more faith in the present Planning Commission that she knew than in the future, unknown Planning Commissioners. She indicated that she would prefer that this Commission tighten the reins on this project with respect to the stories and that she did not want any opinion that two stories were acceptable to be taken as acceptance of any two-story home, regardless of the design. She preferred to limit the homes to their current heights and have any applicants come forward with a maj or or minor PUD modification. She stated that this was a very visible area of town and that she would like design PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2008 Page 10 of 28