Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Hagen reiterated that this is just the pedestrian lighting plan. Staff does not have <br />the actual street lighting plan. In terms of street lights on D, K and C Streets, these are <br />not identified here or in the plans and they would be provided at the building permit <br />stage. <br />Commissioner Nagler said from a lighting and neighborhood aesthetic perspective, he <br />asked what differentiates the triangular area of guest parking stalls and the outdoor <br />planting which is at the intersection of E and C Streets from the triangular area located <br />at the corner of J and H Streets that does have pedestrian lighting. <br />Mr. DeKnoblough said at the intersection of E and C Streets, there is likely a light that <br />will serve to provide that lighting need which is not identified on Sheet L -6 that serves as <br />a secondary source of light for those locations. <br />Commissioner Nagler asked and confirmed that the developer will be more specific <br />moving forward in providing information on how the neighborhood is lit. <br />Commissioner Nagler then asked for the number of paseos in the current plan. <br />Mr. Serpa said it depends on how they are counted, as some are 30 feet wide and <br />some are 10 feet wide. <br />Commissioner Nagler said paseos are shown in the streetscapes and he referred to <br />E Street, stating there seems to be green spaces between two of the home sites, and <br />he asked if those were pedestrian walk - throughs. <br />Mr. Serpa said these are private yards and he pointed out that many of the homes do <br />have private yards and not pass through paseos on that particular street. <br />Commissioner Nagler pointed out that the paseos as depicted break up the home sites <br />and they add to the usability of the neighborhood and to the overall pedestrian traffic <br />flows to the neighborhood, so he encouraged the developer to use them. <br />Regarding the historic building, he asked if Mr. Serpa had a preference between <br />preservation of the Irby or Zia house. <br />Mr. Serpa said his preference comes from a construction standpoint and ease of move. <br />Both homes are very old and there will be significant reconstruction of these houses. <br />The Zia house is probably easier to move, it is closer to its final location, and it has less <br />lead and asbestos than the Irby house. <br />Commissioner Nagler stated there will be more discussion about the probability of <br />Sunflower Hill constructing in the neighborhood and being the provider of special needs <br />housing. The question has been asked as to whether there is a tie -in of building out this <br />project and Sunflower Hill in a way that would potentially create a necessity to keep <br />Sunflower Hill moving for the developer to continue with the project. He asked how long <br />Mr. Serpa anticipated it would take to build out this project from beginning to end. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 10, 2016 Page 10 of 33 <br />