13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Curb cut—I support the principle of what you're saying in adding a spot. I worry that it kills an on-street parking spot, so I don't know if someone could let us know that now or not. With where that cut is now, it appears that several parking spots are possible on the street. I would hate to be moving the entrance to lose a spot on the street. Commissioner Nagler: We're shifting it, aren't we? Commissioner Balch: Hopefully so and I think if we're shifting it and not losing two on the street to gain one on the lot, I'd prefer that. I don't know if people have caught onto it, but I read it in the staff report, Condition 3 does state that this mixed use in Residence 1 cannot be used for residential. I remember at the workshop that we clearly talked about what options were available for mixed use in Residence 1, and I clearly said I like the project as is and would hate to see a change because of that. Yet it is changing. I'm quite okay personally if the mixed use in Residence 1 was used for residential. I think the intent of it is that it could be used for other stuff in the future, whether that be a residential like the micro-unit that's above the mixed use or whether that's residential as associated with the primary homeowner, or whether that is the office. You know, maybe he has a place of business and he has an employee which is not allowed in your home but could be used in a mixed use, as I presume, right? Because that would qualify for that situation, right? Because you cannot have an employee when you work at your home, but this would allow this person to have their employee in their office, correct? Amos: You could have an employee if you apply for a permit, a non-exempt home occupation permit. You could have it in that capacity. Commissioner Balch: Okay, maybe I didn't catch it then, so I guess what I'm saying is that I'm supporting more flexibility with it than just the non-residential element in Residence 1 but I really appreciate where we've gotten to. Commissioner Allen: I want to start off with Commissioner Nagler's comment too that I appreciate the creativity and the architecture. I actually like it a lot. The use of materials – I think we need to be consistent where we just did guidelines that are crystal clear in certain areas, so I'd like to see an alternative to siding and I am okay with the roofs since the guidelines do give us some flexibility there. On mixed use for Residence 1, I am not okay with supporting this project if we do not define this as Office. The reason is that we're not going for a General Plan Amendment and this project, right or wrong, in today's weird environment is zoned Office, and we're sort of working with this to create a mixed use. But we've got to keep some amount of office business in there or we really aren't doing what we're saying we're doing, and right now the project, as of the workshop, the project was less than 10% office business and it was over 90% residence. If we do add this 300 square feet for business, at least it puts us over 10%. We're probably sitting at 12% office, but essentially we have a residential project for the most part and that is not consistent as I've heard staff in their report and as I read the zoning and this project should demand going for a General Plan Amendment if we go that way. So, that's my reason for requiring Residence 1 to be a business. EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 12 of 21