11 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Blank stated that parking was a major issue and that he also lived on a cul-de-sac. He noted that most houses had teenagers who drove,that many of the houses could fit only one car in the garage, and that most people parked in the driveway. He noted that the homes with teenagers parked two cars in the driveway and two cars in the street. He stated that there should be guest parking. 5. Would the proposed open space for the development and for each home be acceptable? Commissioner O'Connor did not have a problem with having private lots with no common open space. He would like to see the larger setback, specifically in the rear yard. He noted that there should be a bigger setback, particularly near the townhome development and against the railroad track. Commissioner Fox noted that she had discussed the open space, but not the setbacks. She would like to see a bigger rear yard setback than the three feet, and stated that there should be a front yard setback but did not know the exact measurement. She did not want the front of the house to be right on the road. She liked the idea of a common open space area and a tot lot. With respect to the small private courtyards for each home, she noted that there should be some standards for what they could contain and not contain in a high-density residential development or upper medium-density residential development. She noted that she has seen water features and fireplaces and would like to see the CC&R's specifically address what would be allowed or not allowed in the private open space, particularly since some of the areas were right next to each other. Commissioner Olson noted that he had already addressed the tot lot. He stated that he believed the current design provided enough open space. He was concerned that if the Planning Commission wanted fewer units on this property, the price per unit would be driven up, which would reduce the developer's reasonable profit. He suggested that reducing the size of the units and freeing up some ground for parking may work for the developer. He further suggested keeping the same number of units with a slightly smaller square footage per unit and freeing up land for parking that way. He was conscious of the fact that if there are too few units on the property, it would no longer be high-density or economically viable. He found the proposed open space area for each home acceptable as presented. Commissioner Narum noted that she could accept the proposed open space as presented but would like to see some open space such as you see when turning into Del Valle Court. She noted that some of these decisions should be market-driven and that she supported housing at a better price. She noted that she could support the project without a tot lot if some of the other items were addressed. She considered the east side setbacks to be more of a priority than a tot lot. She stated that having a couple of dedicated parking spaces for guests would be a higher priority than common open space. Chair Blank stated that in terms of priority, the setbacks were important as was the guest parking. He would like to see some common open space as well as a tot lot,but he did not think that was as important as parking and setbacks. He noted that his priorities were parking, setbacks, open EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 14 of 17