PC 071112 - Laserfiche WebLink

As a follow -up to Commissioner Olson's earlier question about the possibility of incorporating Mr. Inderbitzen's suggestion, Commissioner Pearce inquired if staff sees any downside to adding language regarding stating that each site is specific. Mr. Dolan replied that there are really two approaches that have been suggested: the first is to add something in the Vision Statement or the introduction that acknowledges that flexibility may be required because there is so much difference. He stated he did not have a problem with Mr. Inderbitzen's text and that staff could add some words to the Vision to make that more clear. He indicated that he is a little more concerned about individual designers, who may or may not end up with the property, figuring out ahead of time that they are going to have a problem in the project with one of the things that staff has decided is important and then negotiating to get rid of that requirement for when their project gets here. He stated that he understands that each piece of property is different and has some limitations, and some of them, such as the Nearon site, do have tough shapes; however, he would rather deal with the exceptions at the project level as it is possible that that project does not get developed for a couple of years and ends us with a different product type. He added that some of these problems go away with a different density or product type. Mr. Dolan stated that he would be the first to admit that at 30 units per acre, parking is hard if it is not a podium project because of the limited space. He noted, however, that as the market evolves, there may be some podium projects that are higher density which would free up space on the site to do these things in the guidelines either on all of the sites or even on a portion of the site. He indicated that people are actually inquiring about podium, and this may occur in the coming years. Mr. Dolan stated that he is a little hesitant to let that go before the projects start, but he thinks it is a really good point to set up a more detailed framework about the exception and maybe get rid of the "infeasibility" language. Vice Chair Blank added his support to Mr. Inderbitzen's proposal. He agreed that the word "infeasible" is malapropism in this particular context and proposed that it be either eliminated or replaced with a different word that would reflect the intent of the guidelines. Commissioner Olson stated that he liked Mr. Inderbitzen's language as well and pointed out that it is interesting that the last speaker, Mr. Zahedani, essentially made the same point regarding the need for flexibility that Mr. Inderbitzen, as the first speaker, made. Commissioner Narum stated that she also agreed with the proposal and hears what Mr. Dolan is saying about taking the projects as they come in. She asked Mr. Dolan if, as the projects come in, he can see making a determination that the exceptions are acceptable, for example, the parking issue referred to by Mr. Zahedani due to the odd shape of the Nearon site, and, therefore, the project could be submitted, or would the project still get locked in to where it would first have to go through at least one workshop before submittal. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 11, 2012 Page 13 of 16