Commission split over whether covered corner qualifies as public 'pocket park'

A central point of contention during deliberation on Case 25069 was whether the corner feature labeled Pocket Park B should count toward the project’s required public open space. Some commissioners expressed that the covered, columned corner reads as a building vestibule rather than an inviting public park and asked the applicant to provide additional, usable open space elsewhere.

Commissioner Wei said the issue is not merely aesthetics but usability: commissioners should be confident the space can serve neighborhood users, not only building residents. Staff countered that the Bridge Street code anticipates a range of urban open spaces in the district and that, if the space is truly open to the public and connected with walkways, it may meet the intent. The commission directed the applicant to demonstrate how the corner would remain publicly accessible and to show additional open‑space solutions at the final development plan stage.

The deliberation produced a split on the record: several commissioners asked that the corner not be counted toward the required open space absent stronger public connectivity and usability features; others — and staff — said the proposed design could satisfy the district’s urban open‑space intent if access and amenities are demonstrated. The commission’s final direction was that the applicant return with open‑space solutions that meet the requirement without relying on the covered corner area alone.