3A Public Hearing 2013 0204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Residential Outer RO District requirements for this proposed Planned Development (PD). Exceptions proposed would include: Density: RO requirements would allow up to five single-family homes and four duplexes. Setbacks: interior side setbacks would be less than the RO requirement of 10% of lot width up to 12 feet, and the rear setbacks would be 13 feet rather than the required 25- foot minimum. A 10-foot separation between dwellings: RO requirements call for a 20-foot minimum. Height: RO requirements limit structures within 20 feet of the rear property line to a maximum 15 feet in height, whereas the two-story structures proposed reach 19 feet to the eaves and 22 feet to the roof ridge. Except for the rear units, the homes would be well under the RO District maximum height of 30 feet. Planner Penaranda also indicated that regulations typically require parking spaces to be independently accessible, but the development plans include tandem arrangements, with one parking space on each driveway in front of each one-car garage. The site plan includes a total of 46 spaces, versus the 32 that are required based on the mix of single-family and duplex homes. Of the total, 12 spaces would be reserved for visitor parking. In response to Vice Chair Abero, Planner Penaranda explained that because one of the rear units is set back eight rather than 10 feet from the side property line, it encroaches into its daylight plane envelope. However, he pointed out that it doesn’t affect the daylight plane of any other unit. Commissioner Rennie asked whether the City wants to increase density in this area. Except for a higher-density housing project that may be part of the Shoreline Development Plan, Planner Penaranda indicated that other proposals in the area would be considered on a case-by-case basis. He said most of the area has single-family homes, but RO District zoning also permits duplexes for lots of 14,000 square feet or more and most of the large parcels have single-family homes in front and duplexes in back. Consolidating lots triggers another density formula, he added, which applies to other PDs in the area. For instance, he said, 14 dwelling units in two-story buildings occupy the 56,000-square-foot property immediately north of the proposed development. Commissioner Rennie asked about the ratio of permeable surface to hardscape. Planner Penaranda said that he hasn’t calculated a ratio, but the project design would factor in C.3 stormwater requirements. Commissioner Rennie also expressed concern about the minimal amount of light coming into the units, noting that light would enter upstairs bedrooms only through back windows, while downstairs light would come in only from the back patio door and small side-yard windows. He suggested that narrower three-story buildings might address that problem. Planner Penaranda said three stories would exceed the height limit, and the developer wants to complement the lower-profile properties in the neighborhood. Commissioner Fitzsimons, noting that one of the options for a 56,000-square-foot property is five single-family homes and four duplexes, asked why that’s not the configuration proposed. Planner Penaranda replied that the developer believes a well-designed project could keep the amenities and access and still allow additional units. Pointing out that the RO District criteria were put in place for a reason, Commissioner Fitzsimons said he’d raise the question again when the proposal comes back to the Planning Commission and expect a more thorough explanation then. Commissioner Fitzsimons also suggested that some of the units, particularly those on the front and back of the property, would benefit from having more windows, not only for the eventual tenants but also for the view of passers-by.