21 ATTACHMENT 6 AND 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor: It's also another argument for why we should maybe on some of these, if we can, make comments early enough, unfortunately after all the time that's been put into this project, these things have already been designed. It would be really burdensome to go back to a developer and say, go redesign 11 of your homes so that they meet 40 %. 1 mean, that wasn't contemplated from the beginning. But unless staff is going to take a real hard look on these and limit everyone to what's normal and not give them any variance, it's really late for us to come back and want to change things. Beaudin: I guess I'm not as concerned about the timing and the process. The percentage changes that we're talking about are not that great. They certainly affect the overall floor plan and Ponderosa would have to have a look at Plan 1 and Plan 2 and maybe break out a different plan model, but if you set the maximum, then that's what the zoning is. Compatible and consistent are pretty subjective words and what the developer has suggested this evening is that some of the neighboring properties are exceeding that 40% as well. I don't have those numbers to verify the statement, but visually, the difference between a 40% FAR and a 45% FAR, if you were just walking down the sidewalk, you're likely not to notice the difference unless somebody put a real funky addition on the front. As long as the architecture is good the massing and bulk control that FAR provides, if you've got a good architect involved, you're just not going to see that level of difference. So if there are concerns about the architecture tonight or there's an interest in having a hard cap on the size of the units, it's not too late to do that; to make those kinds of changes. So I guess that's what I would suggest at this point in the game. Commissioner Allen: Could I ask you all a question then because I had a discussion earlier with Mr. Weinstein about this and I didn't bring it up today because I was more concerned about a standard. But I did feel like the bonus room designs —I mean my comments to Mr. Weinstein were that it felt too massive to me. And I appreciate your comments because you know, you hate to change something this late in the process. mean, I really do because I think everything else is really well done. But, I do feel it's a little massive and now that we get into this FAR discussion, it makes me think you know, if we brought the FAR to what the standard is, it might force one to look at things like the bonus room and perhaps scale back a little bit. With all that said, I appreciate Mr. Beaudin's comments because you're absolutely right. 5% is 5 %. 5% well designed you might not notice, but the bottom line is, we have a standard and if now 45% becomes the example and standard for the future, then why not 50% because it's just 5% more than 45 %. You know ... so that's what I think about and worry about as a Planning Commissioner when we have flexibility. Chair Ritter: And I would say that if you wanted to change that ratio, make it be 40 homes or something. Then you go to a trade -off and that's what we have to do as Planning Commissioners is adjust for that. So that's why I'm not opposed to 5 %. We're close, and then we're going to say pick a maximum of 11. What was it you recommended? Maybe 11? Or 9? 1 think we're getting close to making a motion of some sort. Commissioner Allen: So could I change my motion? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2016 Page 21 of 46