Laserfiche WebLink
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. <br /> Mr. Ebrahimi noted that the visual presented by staff shows only Buildings C and D to <br /> provide clarity for the Commission to see just these two buildings. He noted that the <br /> empty air space between Buildings C and D is where Buildings A and B would be <br /> located. He then displayed the applicant's slide which shows all four buildings and <br /> more roof articulation. He added that the 15-foot angle is over 50 feet from one ridge to <br /> another, and that is what is reflected. He indicated that looking at all the buildings <br /> together does two things: it shows the full perspective, and it provides a lot more roof <br /> differentiation. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> 3. Is the revised building design acceptable? <br /> Commissioner Posson stated that he likes all the improvements the applicant has <br /> made. He noted that the residents have indicated that they view visual impacts as <br /> significant and asked the applicant to go back and see if there are any design changes <br /> that could be made to make it less intrusive to the residents. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor agreed that the applicant did a lot of improvements that the <br /> Commission asked for. He indicated that he is actually very impressed with what they <br /> did and that he likes the results: the wood gates; some wood detail at the bottom to <br /> make those patios look a lot nicer; the awnings; the rafter tails, and the very extensive <br /> change on the redesigned end unit. <br /> Chair Olson stated that he also likes this revision. <br /> 4. Is the revised dwelling unit with living units over parking by Building s A and B <br /> acceptable? <br /> Chair Olson stated that if one story is eliminated in the back on the south end, those <br /> units will have to be put somewhere to accommodate the required 30 units per acre. <br /> Commissioner Posson agreed. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor also agreed. He added that it is not what he desires, but it <br /> looks like it is the only place, if they are to be moved off the south side, which is a big <br /> gain for everyone. <br /> 5. Would the Planning Commission support the requested exception if the project <br /> were to move forward as proposed? <br /> Chair Olson noted that the exception is the southeast portion of Building B as set back <br /> approximately five feet eight inches from the back of the sidewalk, not meeting the <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 22, 2014 Page 11 of 16 <br />