13 - Laserfiche WebLink

important element to the overall look and architecture of the structures and that we shouldn't start changing it. So I'm fine with the metal roof. On the setbacks, I appreciate that the setback particularly on the mixed use building is much less than what we typically require and we've talked about that previously and I've certainly thought about it. I think I'm fine with it mostly because we want to communicate that this is a mixed use building and that there is a commercial element to it. Given the size of the lot and the fact that the applicant is attempting to get the number of buildings onto it that they are, and in conjunction with that, that we want the mixed use building to clearly have a commercial component to it, I'm fine with the less than standard setback on that building, and that the setbacks on the rest of the project are within striking distance. On the parking, it's a tough one and I harp back to the fact that nothing has really changed on this question since our workshop and that our workshop fully discussed and vetted this issue. The one thing that maybe has changed is the mixed use on Residence 1, so one could reasonably argue that there is a requirement for one additional parking space that has been overall added to the project based on the change that we asked for. Otherwise, what we discussed at the workshop remains true today and I would like a general operating principle that what we decide and the guidance we give at workshops prevail unless something new is learned. And Commissioner Allen, on several of her points, raised a good point of explanation that at the time of the workshop some details were not known and that's a legitimate reason I think to change the guidance from a workshop or to change one's opinion. But if nothing does change I believe that the guidance we give at workshops to the extent possible should prevail in our final action. So to that degree, the fact that the studios are as small as they are, that the development is as close to public transportation as it is, that it is in the City core as it is, leads me to continue to believe that the conclusion reached at the workshop is the right one on parking; however, I do support the change in the curb cut- out and I would like that additional space to be added because it is possible to do and I think it would be a reasonable change. Commissioner Balch: That was a good synopsis. So harking back to the workshop, I remember you and I were very tight in hand on that comment about the mixed use addition, and basically to paraphrase, it was "we'd like to see it in Residence 1" and I made sure I clearly stated that I knew it would cause the parking question to come up when or if the mixed use came in. I personally am extremely happy that the applicant was willing to change the plan to accommodate this mixed use in Residence 1. I think, as Tim has said, this completely makes the project look better, definitely from the street. I just want to compliment everyone working together to get that because I think this mixed use is outstanding. In terms of the siding being metal, I can go with that. I think that's a good statement. If it is expressly prohibited as Commissioner Allen pointed out, we need to stay with that. I also support the roof metal staying consistent. I think Commissioner Nagler pointed out it adds to it and adds interest and I think that is needed. I personally think the look is really nice on the plan showing those finishes you used. EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 11 of 21