PC 071112 - Laserfiche WebLink

very specific, unique, different sites with respect to their geography, their configuration, their size, the way they access public streets, and the kinds of amenities that surround them. He added that he believes this is the intent of the design guidelines and that this section could use some improvement by acknowledging those differences for each one of the sites. He stated that this would help them, as land owners and developers, with the encouragement that they should be creating and be intuitive in looking for new ways to implement these guidelines while being consistent with the vision, rather than somehow getting lock -in with a set of design standards. Mr. Inderbitzen noted that having said that, there will be a few issues where the owners and developers will think it would be better to ask for an exception or a change to the design standards, rather than to try to figure out a way to comply with them, because their belief is that complying with the guidelines does not improve the project but actually takes it back a step. He added that he would not want the Commission to be surprised if they come forward in a few months with a project application that includes two or three issues where they just could not meet the guidelines. Mr. Inderbitzen concluded that this is the purpose of his coming before the Commission tonight. He suggested that if there is a way to change the Vision Statement with some kind of additional language, it would at the least give staff and the property owner the signal that flexibility really is important, and the owners and developers will be receptive to it, particularly in recognition that the sites are different. Vice Chair Blank stated that he heard two different things: first, an acknowledgement that each site is different; and second, as part of that acknowledgement, each site should be allowed to deviate or apply for exceptions to the design guidelines because of those differences. He indicated that these are two different things and requested clarification from Mr. Inderbitzen. Mr. Inderbitzen replied that he probably said two different things and gave an example. He indicated that in the letter that the owner's representative submitted in May, there was a suggestion that the Vision Statement include some language like this: "Each of the rezoned sites to which these standards and guidelines apply are very different in their configuration, size, surrounding geography, neighborhood context, and available community amenities and, therefore, present very unique opportunities and constraints for residential development." He explained that it would be just a recognition that the sites are different and that the guidelines and standards are really conceptual and encourage imagination in the development of each site. Mr. Inderbitzen continued that the basic statement in the introduction document that he would take away from the guidelines is: "We desire to build quality neighborhoods with amenities for future residents that the existing community enjoy. Simply put, it must be a very nice place to live." He noted that, simply put, there may be a parking standard that they would like some flexibility on because they think it may actually improve circulation for pedestrians and other purposes, but if the design standards are so rigid that they cannot vary that, then they will have to come to the City and ask if their PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 11, 2012 Page 8 of 16