11 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

With regard to the lot on the east side, Commissioner Narum inquired about the setbacks of the townhouses (Lots 9-11) 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. Commissioner Fox noted that it appeared to her that there were no sidewalks since this was a private road. She inquired about the width of the proposed private road versus the width of a normal public street. Ms. Decker replied that a normal street with one side available for parking would be 28 feet and that typically, most developments were 32 to 36 feet in width. The applicant proposed a width of 20 feet, which was the same dimension used for EVAs; this road had no sidewalks and potentially would have a curb. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dave DiDonato, applicant, noted that he had created responses to the staff report and added that there were some inconsistencies that were lost in the translation. He distributed those responses and believed that the information would clarify some of the confusion. He noted that his architect and landscape architect would address the technical questions and that he would address the questions of density. He noted that the initial staff comments, dated November 9, 2007, indicated that the densities of the 14-unit development were consistent with the land use designations. At that time, staff asked whether the applicant would be able to increase the densities for the site, which he took under consideration. He noted that after review, he returned with his findings and had determined that it was not feasible for this site for economic and EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 2 of 17