PC 090821 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Brown asked if the use of recycled water in landscaping would be taken into account. Mr. Williams stated an exception could be made but the intent of the standard was to minimize water use. Chair Brown expressed concern that 25 percent was too restrictive. Commissioner Nibert concurred. Chair Brown discussed his vision of a square landscaped area in the middle of a high-density project. Mr. Williams discussed play areas oftentimes use surfaces other than turf. Commissioner Nibert asked the meaning of"rhythm of buildings" related to windows on Page 34. Mr. Williams explained that older communities had vertical window proportions whereas modern buildings had horizontal window proportions and the intent was to utilize vertical windows and articulations for visual appeal. Commissioner Nibert asked for clarification on setback of interior partitions on page 37. Mr. Williams explained that it was to ensure a wall was not placed directly adjacent to a window. Commissioner Nibert asked the definition of view shed on page 29. Mr. Williams stated it would be amended to articulate the view at the end of a corridor. Commissioner Nibert provided necessary edits to the document. Ms. Clark suggested Commissioner Nibert could provide his remaining more detailed comments, if they were not substantive, to staff directly. Commissioner Allen requested reevaluation of the parking minimums to add specifics based on size of units. Mr. Williams explained that greater parking ratios made projects feel only like buildings and parking lots and referenced the design quality of the BART project. Commissioner Allen agreed with Mr. Williams and suggested more studio projects. Chair Brown mentioned circulation and pedestrian walkways and proposed amenities on page 8 of the agenda report; he stated he agreed with the requirement but the way it is currently phrased did not allow for exceptions. Ms. Bonn and Mr. Williams continued the second portion of the presentation related to examples of projects with density greater than 40 dwelling units per acre in other communities. Commissioner Allen referenced a question posed by Commissioner Nibert regarding whether it was profitable to develop all affordable projects at a higher density in a market-based development. She inquired whether a high density, all affordable project could be developed by a market-based developer without the City contributing significant funding. Mr. Williams discussed his experience in affordable housing developments, and indicated both market- based developers and nonprofit developers utilized public funds. He explained that land cost, parking ratios, and density impacted cost. Commissioner Allen asked the `sweet spot' for density. Mr. Williams suggested a one or 1.25-acre site family development with 75-90 family dwelling units per acre. He discussed Commissioner Allen's mention of studios but explained that the housing shortage was based on family housing. He explained the State had changed its focus in the last two rounds of tax credits to require more family units, and he was seeing entitled projects with a larger number of studios were switching to include more larger, family units. Ms. Clark referenced a discussion with Mr. Williams regarding competitiveness for tax credits and geographic priorities. Mr. Williams stated geographic locations needed to have surrounding amenities and services and priority funding was provided for projects near transit Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 September 8, 2021