Laserfiche WebLink
subdivision from the major roadways .so that everybody can have some satisfaction with the <br />ultimate outcome of how this will look. Generally I agree with staff recommendations with <br />the addition of that last one and would be supportive of the PUD. <br />Commissioner Renfrew - I share Commissioner VanNostrand's view that'maybe this is not as <br />good as what we started out with in design. I think it is a great solution to the neighbors to <br />reduce the density. I commend Mr. Hoyt and his group in coming" up with this plan and trying <br />to make it work. I have concerns with the street scape along -Via Appia and Pine. Particularly <br />as there is going to be an increase in volume and traffic count. That has to be ascetically <br />viewed from the drive by traffic. One of the big benefits in that is the depression of six to <br />eight feet. If that is the case with the houses along Via Appia it will effectively hide the rear <br />patio, living area, of those homes from street view. I am a little concerned with the walk outs <br />and how they will reflect from the south, the homes to the south looking to the north, as far as <br />perceived elevations. I think this plan fits the City's needs and I hope it fits the neighbors <br />needs. <br />Chairperson Boulet - This does reflect the nature of compromise. I don't think anyone is <br />completely happy with this. It does not mean I want to say okay we will take anything that <br />you throw at us. 'I think the staff recommendation's were good. I think we can fine tune it <br />and still keep the density that is proposed, without having some of the problems that the <br />density implies. I would like to see, without getting into exact numbers, a recommendation <br />from the Commission that certain setbacks be increase. I don't want it to become unworkable, <br />but by the same token I think we can make that recommendation in good faith. Especially as it <br />relates to building separations. I think that is a big issue. Especially when your dealing with <br />35 foot high structures that have walkout basements which can visually appear much higher. <br />At this point the applicant is asking for all of the setbacks to be reduced significantly from <br />what an RE zone would require. We have to do that in order to be able to permit this density. <br />Whether we have to do that to the degree that the applicant has suggested, I am not <br />comfortable to that. I have done a few sketches of my own as to how much building room you <br />would have if, for instance, you have 15 foot building separation. If you required as staff <br />suggested a 25 foot setback, even on a 4500 square foot lot you have room for a two car <br />garage and an 1100 square foot ground floor. I think that we don't have to accept as gospel <br />the setback request that the applicant has made. I think the applicant has made those with <br />maximum flexibility in mind, yet if you drive through Pine Street Park it is hard,to notice any <br />flexibility having been used. I don't think it reflects as much creativity as you could -have if <br />the setbacks were a little bit more limited. I think you would find more creative ways to deal <br />with it without having all the houses hugh bulk planes right next to each other where in the <br />areas between them are unable to support plant growth. What I would like to see is some type <br />of recommendation to City Council that all the setbacks be increased along with the building <br />separation. <br />Commissioner McAvinew - I am having a hard time embracing this plan. It is basically a <br />political solution. I heard the neighbors concerns, but I think ascetically the town homes were <br />15 <br />