13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Amos: Yes, if you take it at the code. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chair Ritter: Okay, let's open it up to the applicant. If anyone wants to speak, I have four speaker cards including the applicant. Mike Carey. Mr. Carey thanks for doing the workshop. Thanks for taking the time and going through that process. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mike Carey, Applicant: Thank you. Thank you for all of the workshop discussions. I just wanted to address a couple of things real quick on Commissioner Allen's discussion of the historic parts as far as the metal and things like that. I'm a little bit confused, so I want to clarify that. I think the historic ordinance that went through everything was for the historic homes and that's different than new construction and what we're open for interpretation for. Is that correct? Beaudin: Adam and I were just discussing that. It's residential development downtown period. Mike Carey, Applicant described the scope, layout, and key elements of the application. Commissioner Nagler: On the parking question Commissioner Allen raised, what are your thoughts about that? Carey: I mean, we really vetted the parking heavily when we were here last time. Parking is the big issue. We worked really hard to make it all work. We thought we nailed it. At the end before the workshop, we realized that technically the studios are burdened with two parking spaces per studio whether they are 100-square-foot studios or 300-square-foot studios like they are. They are tiny studios, so for me to stick to a rule of an Office zoning that we're in the middle of potentially changing to C-C, the properties next door have the Core Overlay which only have to do one, so everyone around us has to do one. The front pieces have to do two for studio and then we talked about the reality of the code allowing us to go up to four, five, six-bedroom for two spaces. So Tim could flip it to two, two-bedroom units and we only have to figure out four spaces. But three micro-mini studios are up for six. I don't think it's reasonable. I think it needs to be figured out by staff and the code amendments we're doing. Also our discussion in the workshop was if we converted the front use, which we're really sticking to residential on, into a commercial office use, you guys were kind of torn and all the minutes say we could probably work with you and if you work on Residence 1, we could maybe not hit you up for the extra parking space. That was in all of our minutes, in our discussions, heavily vetted so we're hoping that because we modified it to make it a flex space that we could stick with not an additional space for it. We also talked that we want the market to kind of dictate that space. So whether that's a house and somebody buys it and they want their home office there like we all do at our house, or they really want to put a sign up and call it "Tim's Architecture" I want it to be whatever the market demands, right? So we don't want to mandate it micro into a sense that it has to be this so therefore if you have a home office in your house, you EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 4 of 21