18 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

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 object 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. Commissioner Narum wished to confirm that the Commissioners had referred to the rear setbacks on the east side. Commissioner O'Connor noted that he was concerned about all of the rear setbacks. 3. Guest Parking Commissioner Narum noted that this was a difficult issue and that in her neighborhood, all four houses in the cul -de -sac had teenagers who drive. She believed that if the size of the houses were to be reduced or if one or two houses were removed, she would like to see several parking spots specifically for guest parking. She noted that many of the neighbors in the houses fronting Stanley Boulevard had "no parking" signs in front of them and that the parking on the south side of Stanley Boulevard that will be eliminated will further exacerbate the current parking problem. Commissioner Olson believed that guest parking was an issue and that the Comcast truck, for instance, could park in the driveway on a service call. He noted that visitors would not be able to find a place to park if the homeowner's garage was filled with stored items. He stated that he believed there should be some spaces available in the development for guest parking but was unsure how that would be accomplished. Commissioner Fox stated that she did not believe the guest parking situation was very good and suggested that there be at least one guest parking place per unit. She noted that staff had requested in another high density development that guest parking spaces in the driveway area be provided. She stated that it was important to have consistency in the planning process and that guest parking consistent with other projects should be included. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he did not believe there was enough on -site guest parking but was unsure about the appropriate number. He noted that if there were fewer units, there would be more room for guest parking and more space between units. He added that he did not believe parking would be an issue for this development before he found out that half of the parking on Stanley Boulevard would be taken away, which exacerbated the problem. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 13 of 17