18 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker replied that when this project originally came in, staff was concerned that this particular development did not provide any open space area for a common area, even if the units were to be moved together. She noted that they had discussed attaching the units, having duets, and several different alternatives, thinking it would be appropriate to have a common open space area. She noted that the argument for the Silverstone project was that there was a park across the street. Although the Kottinger Park was across the street from Silverstone, the Planning Commission and City Council felt that there should be some open space for the families there, and a very small tot lot was created for the residents on that site. She noted that this project would not be required to have open space on -site because of the proximity of existing parks. She noted that staff requested direction from the Planning Commission for area, particularly with respect to revisiting the site plan in some manner. Commissioner Fox inquired whether the closest tot lot play structure was at Amador Valley Community Park, which was a ten- minute walk. Commissioner Narum noted that she had not walked it, but believed it was less than ten minutes. Chair Blank noted that staff had posed seven questions for this workshop. 1. 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, a one- to two -unit reduction would be appropriate. He noted that if the FAR or the layout were different, EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 11 of 17