PC 082416 - Laserfiche WebLink

way be rationalized and address questions like, is it a housing type that we want to encourage? Is there some sort of a limit on the number of them we would consider? Would we go so far as identifying specific pieces of property that should an applicant be interested we would be willing to consider this kind of development for specific pieces of property? But, however it's addressed by the Downtown Specific Task Force, I as one member of the Commission would ask that that conversation occur because without some sort of a plan I would anticipate this would be a type of project that is requested over and over again. I'll move onto two specifics. The first is let me just say I think it's a great project. I said it during the workshop. My colleagues have said it. I think you did a great job of designing a quality project, you were responsive to what you heard back from us, no matter what the answers may be to the questions I previously posed, I think this is a perfect site for this kind of a project, so all that being said, I have two specific things. If you look on page 11 of 32 of the newer staff report the image that's there actually highlights the question I'm about to ask. The aesthetic of the architecture is quite interesting in its articulation, depth, changing surfaces, in's and out's, dormer windows and so forth, except for the top roofline. And whether this is a fair representation or not, I had the notion both through the workshop and on this that from the sort of the front of the structure's second story back you see a block, flat roofline that I actually think detracts from the interest of the architecture, and I'm just wondering if there's something that could be done that's reasonable, affordable to break up that sort of uniformity of that top roofline? Beaudin: This has been a discussion item for us as well and so there are a couple of points. When you look at these things directly in elevation like this you're rarely if ever going to see the roofs the way they are shown here. There's a couple of factors; there's the landscape and just also the perspective when down on the sidewalk and when you're both on the same side of the street and across the street. This is probably an odd angle to look at any residential project. That being said, the rooflines are different and so this would be one where we would want to bring the applicant into the discussion. We talked a little bit about potentially tilting the roof down a little bit and lowering the pitch. It's a 4:12 pitch in the plan set and we wondered about doing a 3:12. The other option here could be adding some kind of a dormer or a design. It would be purely aesthetic because that's not habitable space as far as I can tell from a plan set so adding a dormer, window or something like that in there is a possibility as well to dress up that roof if it did stay at the same angle or same pitch. Commissioner Nagler: Okay. So, if my fellow Commissioners agree, I would encourage the motion to include asking staff to continue to work with the applicant on this specific topic. My second issue is what I asked about earlier which is the setback on St. John. I think if you look at the projects that we as a City have approved in the Downtown Core over the past 5 years, the setbacks have suffered in my opinion. And it's particularly true around the corner; the three -story project where there's 2 '/2 -foot setback, and even the one that's right around the corner from this, right? So again, I understand there is a finite amount of land and that something has to give to create additional street setback. I personally, as much as the backside neighbors wouldn't appreciate it, would rather give up the territory on the back of the project than on the street because much more of the community is impacted by the setback on St. John than the distance between the back PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 24, 2016 Page 11 of 39