pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2E7 2E8 269 270 271 272 273 z�a 275 -�, � remain even if the developer chose to reduce number units and make them bigger within the same footprint. Chair Bakeman expressed concern with the size of the bui�din9; and suggested that with a separate limitation on the building size or mass, it may help neighbors' concems and keep the building to a reasonable size. Commissioner Gottfried opined with the scale of the building: Commissioner Gottfried opined continuity of the neighborhood. that he was not as concemed about traffic capacity as its size, mass and height creating the overall scale. that the proposed building seemed overkill in providing 27s Mr. Paschke addressed density versus mass issues; perceptions of a truss roof system 27� rather than a flat roof system; location of two (2) major thoroughfares on either side of [he 2?a property; previous consideration of a townhome project in 1995, and consideration of 27s Medium Density of the parcel at that time; and transitions into other single-family uses. 28G Mr. Paschke indicated that, if building scale was still an issue, there were exterior faCade 28t designs that could visually reduce the perceived building scale and other available 2a2 mitigation measures. 283 Chair Bakeman and Commissioner Wozniak opined that, if the building didn't have the 28a north-south piece or wall, il may ft better, rather than the footprint flling the entire parcel, 2&5 and providing for more green space. 2a5 287 28S 285 '29G 297 292 293 294 295 29G 297 298 299 300 3G1 302 Commissioner Best opined that the private market and economy would dictate the density to some measure; and noted the ongoing work of staff and the applicant on reducing the footprint and increasing the green space. Commissioner poherty suggested conditions that would provide an average, not-to- exceed square footage per unit that would ultimately reduce the number of units and the building footprint. Commissioner Boengter suggested that, rather than Commissioners attempting to redesign the project, that the vote be calied, leaving lhe decision up to Mr. Mueller and his architects. Commissioner Gottfried concurred; opining that this seemed to be good logic, and that none of the Commissioners were engineers, nor did they have a vested interest in this property. Ayes: 1 (Boerigter) Nays: 6(Best; Wozniak; Martinson; Gottiried; Doherty; Bakeman) Motion failed. Chair Bakeman noted that the case was tentatively scheduled to be heard by the City Council at their March 23, 2009 meeting.