Commissioners: clarify open‑space math, add material variation on proposed two‑unit 'craft row' homes on Vaughn

At a study session the Redevelopment Commission reviewed plans for two attached dwellings proposed for a 0.16‑acre parcel at the southeast corner of Vaughn and Elm and asked staff and the applicant to clarify open‑space calculations and to add more varied exterior materials.

The project, described by planning staff as “craft row homes on Vaughn,” proposes two dwelling units on the parcel — the maximum allowed under the site’s multifamily‑low zoning. Planning staff told the commission the zoning district requires a minimum 35% common open space and that the submitted drawings combined private and common open space in a way that made it unclear whether the project meets that threshold. Kristen, planning staff, said staff had sent comments back to the applicant asking for that clarification.

Commissioners also focused on building materials and elevations. The front facades are proposed in two brick colors with metal-and‑glass accents; the sides and rear are primarily stucco. Commissioner Ball said he was unsure of the courtyard’s purpose and asked whether it was intended to satisfy the open‑space requirement. He also noted visible synthetic turf near the site and said, “I actually don't mind synthetic turf,” while asking staff to confirm where turf is permitted in the Heritage District. Planning staff said they would confirm turf policy for the residential areas.

Several commissioners urged more “360‑degree” design so the side and rear elevations are not monotonous stucco. Planning staff said they had asked the applicant to wrap some brick around windows and lower walls and to consider adding a second material or color; staff also said the applicant would provide more detailed elevations and window/trim information for the public hearing. Commissioners suggested modest, low‑cost measures such as trellises, vines, window treatments, small pop‑outs, pavers, or limited brick returns at corners and at the base of windows as ways to add visual depth without large budget increases.

Commissioners asked staff to provide additional detail at the hearing, including a clear breakdown of common versus private open space, more detailed wall‑section and finish information for the north elevation, and clarification of floor‑plan relationships (ground‑level garages with livable space behind, second‑floor living areas with balconies, and third‑floor living space). Staff said they would return with more information at the public hearing.

This item was discussed as a study session; no action or vote was taken.

For follow up, staff will request revised drawings that separately show common open space calculations and will ask the applicant to provide expanded material and window details to address commissioners' design concerns.