Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 55 <br /> <br />Commissioner Seybert referred to the height of the units 11-15 (page A 13 of the plans) <br />that exceed height and borders other property lines. It seems to him that there is 27 feet <br />of living space and asked if this could come closer to the height requirement by using a <br />different architectural design, like a flat roof type of design. <br /> <br />Mr. Mehra replied that could be true and staff liked the roof the way it was proposed, but <br />the roof can be flattened. <br /> <br />Commissioner Seybert asked if the extra feet that is pushing this above the height <br />requirement essentially an architectural feature. <br /> <br />Mr. Mehra replied yes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gee referred to sheet A 13 of packet, and stated the project is 27 feet tall <br />in terms of livable area and additional 6 feet is an architectural element that improves the <br />quality of the project. He would like to verify that based on the documentation given in <br />the site surveys the proposed townhomes are about 7.4 feet taller than the peak of the <br />adjacent townhomes and the adjacent townhome project is about 12 inches higher than <br />the proposed development. Issues are created by combining building height with <br />stories. Regarding the retaining wall he would like it clarified if the buildings along the <br />rear are being built on top of the retaining wall or if the building height is measured from <br />top of finished grade adjacent to the proposed homes. <br /> <br />Eric Peterson stated that the garage is 42 and the existing grade is at 39 %, so there <br />isn't fill there. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cronin stated that he is concerned that this has gone very quickly from a <br />community standpoint to this point. He believes that there is a big gap on what he <br />believes would be a positive and strong proposal. He is concerned with the front and <br />back setbacks, height and parking. He recommends that this item be tabled and to get <br />an additional session to spend more time on this project in a different format. <br /> <br />Commissioner Smith would like to start identifying some of the issues tonight. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holt suggested that the Planning Commission give some direction to the <br />applicant as to what are some of the issues especially parking. <br /> <br />Commissioner Seybert asked what can be enhanced by putting the project off. He sees <br />a project that could have received a CEQA exemption if it had been requested and <br />didn't. This project meets parking requirements and meets the density requirements and <br />meets the lot coverage requirements and other than architectural features it meets the <br />height requirement. He believes that they need to either move on the project or tell the <br />developer to start over and come in with something different. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gee stated that he could not differentiate between the numbers used by <br />the applicantl staff and public. He would like an accurate set of drawings put together <br />and asked if the design is consistent and the setbacks not enough. He would like a <br />study session to clarify more information. <br /> <br />Commissioner Smith stated that they have to consider issues that need to be addressed <br />in a public forum and with staff. <br /> <br />Chair Radcliffe went over Commissioner Janet Borgens' concerns. <br />Page 8 of 13 <br />