17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker stated that it would be helpful to look at the building elevations and noted that the width of the windows is essentially the width of the proposed balconies. She demonstrated that it is moved in from the edge by approximately 4.5 feet and that with the juxtaposition of the other lot at a right angle, along with the angle of the lot, it is unlikely that someone would be able to stand on a four-foot wide balcony and look around that four-foot distance into someone's bedroom. Commissioner Narum stated that she really likes the front unit on the project and was generally supportive of the concept of infill but that the rear wall of the back units bothered her. She indicated that with 1,300- to 1,400-square-foot units at the back, the project gives a sense of trying to fill in every bit of ground possible. She noted that she feels this would be a better project if the square footage was a little smaller as there would be a little bit more land and open space. She added that she has a problem with taking down the two trees in the back. Chair Blank stated that his first house was almost the exact same size, and he felt then that it was pretty tiny. He noted that if the units were reduced down to 1,100 square feet, they would be very tiny. Commissioner Narum noted that her first house was less than 1,000 square feet and agreed that it was small. Ms. Decker noted that the General Plan land use designation for high-density residential has a requirement of eight dwelling units or more. She stated that this project with three units meets that dwelling-units-per-acre definition, and, therefore, it is consistent with the General Plan density. She added that it is also consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan density. She indicated that when projects do not meet the General Plan requirements, other findings need to be discussed and the loss of the actual units need to be made up for and planned accordingly. Commissioner Pearce stated that made sense to her and believed the project was appropriate for the area. Commissioner Narum stated that the density is supposed to be greater than eight or more units per acre and that this density is 17.65 units per acre, which is well in excess. She added that she is bothered by the back units as well as the lack of off-street parking for guests among the three units. She noted that the Commission is aware that parking is an issue in the Downtown. Commissioner Olson stated that he raised the same question on density at the last meeting and did not see how eight dwelling units per acre can be achieved if there are three units on .17 acres. He indicated that he did the math and the number Commissioner Narum quoted as 17.65 is what he arrived at as well. He noted, however, that he does not have a problem with this project in terms of density because it is in the Downtown, and the City wants a higher density Downtown. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 29, 2008 Page 3 of 4