PC 042716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Ritter: So you're going right to discussion point 3; great segway there! I'm going to let you keep talking because this is number 3 and Jennifer, do you have anything you want to add at this point as to what you're looking for? Hagen: On this one right now, similar to what you had just gone through we want to know whether you think the open space concept is appropriate or whether you would rather have programmed space similar to tot lots, as well as if you had any comments on the layout and concept for the amenities and community garden park as well. Weinstein: And if I could just ask for clarification as well when you're talking about density and the relationship between the project density and the open space, if you could clarify to what extent are you talking about number of units versus the actual building mass because there are ways to extract more open space out of this project that would involve not necessarily carving off residential units from this site but reducing the size of houses or clustering them together. So, to the extent you can talk about those two options as well, I think that would be helpful as well in staffs view to work with the applicant. Commissioner Nagler: So everything that's been said and then in response to how this, as I see it, to potentially create more open space, it is what I was referring to in fact is the number of units and so the obvious conclusion to me would be to ask for reduction in number of units in order to get green space. If instead, you can change the configuration of the neighborhood or change the lot sizes or keep the number of units, I probably would be open to that personally, although to do that it likely would make the neighborhood more compact, right? Weinstein: Some of the houses may be more compact. There could be clustering of houses with larger amounts of open space and there are lots of ways. Commissioner Nagler: That's fine, and I know there are public amenities and I'm sorry that I'm skipping around but just to be clear in going back to the site plan comment, I think the fact that these are more affordable homes and by definition therefore are smaller is a good thing. It's a real attribute of this project, so I just want to be clear that I say that. So then on the public amenities, we should talk I guess later about the restoration or not of the historical home, but as it relates to the barn and that historic park, I think that the concept is great and it should definitely be supported. I obviously don't think that the number of public amenities is sufficient by virtue of my comment about the open green space and that more could be done and should be done. Commissioner Brown: Okay, I actually want to go back to point 2 for a second. I just noticed Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 off of D Street, there's really no way to get there by sidewalks which I find kind of odd and how do you get to Lots 14 and 15? 1 see how you get to Lot 16, but I'm presuming the front is facing to the right? Hagen: Right, so that's one —we had a small section in the staff report about areas that we already identified that we want to work with the applicant. One of those specifically is the homes on D Street that front the wall basically and the homes on K Street that front the wall. We want to explore different options with the applicant potentially creating a fifth unit type that maybe has a front door entry on the same elevation as the garage or something that has a side entry so it's not necessarily facing the back wall. It's something we have identified as something we want to work with further. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 27, 2016 Page 28 of 43