13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch: The mixed use in Residence 1? Commissioner Allen: The mixed use of Residence 1. I mean I'm right on the edge with even that bumping up, but I understand why we're there. On parking, there is a new piece of information that came up in workshop. At the workshop we were under the belief from the information we had from Mr. Carey that the residence next door was required to have one parking spot for a studio and as he said today, he was saying the residence next door had one parking spot they were required to have and in fact we learned today from staff that it's 1.5; that the residence next door and the RM district requires 1.5 parking spots per apartment unit. Correct me if that changes but that's what I heard you say, so that changes my thinking of where I was at. If that's really the rules, I think we need to be fair and consistent with that thinking versus giving this property a better deal than someone else. So I would say the math would come up with the three studios being 1.5. That equals 4.5 units. The new commercial space for Residence 1 is one, so that's another one and then the commercial that's in the multi-use building is three so if my math's right, that's 8.5 spots of parking that would be required. And someone's got to figure out how to do it. I'm not in favor of curb cuts if it means a street spot is lost. Traditionally if a street spot is lost, we also require someone to give it back. Commissioner Nagler: If we move the curb cut, are we losing a parking spot on the street? Amos: There's no designated striping in that area. It's unlikely that you'll lose a spot if you're moving the curb. Commissioner Allen: Okay, so that's where I come out on parking. And I know if we go the parking way it impacts density and the layout, but then I come back to the one issue that I'm really struggling with this on this whole project, and that is compatibility with the neighborhood. I've been reading these design guidelines and thinking about them. New construction needs to be especially sensitive to surrounding structures. There's a lot of discussion about massing, about paying attention to what's there. I know this is an older neighborhood and that doesn't mean we need to build single family homes. That's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to upgrade a neighborhood, but I really, really think that whether you call it a multi-use building or what, this building that's on a setback of one foot that's 30 feet high and three-stories is just not a fit with that little neighborhood. I asked Natalie how many projects have we approved that are 30 feet, three-stories and a one-foot setback and there were none. I mean, we had a challenge with Mike's project on Peters Street and you know, with needing a 20 foot setback; now those buildings are a little taller but it was a 20 foot setback and Mike said to us the reason I'm going 20 feet is I've done other projects that people have complained about because they had an 8 or 10 foot setback and the 30 feet was a little overpowering around smaller homes, and so I am fundamentally not feeling like I can find this project is compatible today with this neighborhood at this massing and I wish I asked and I'm sorry I didn't, and I'll bring up later but I think for some of these projects, story poles are going to be critical; that sometimes you don't know how something's going to look until it's built and anyway, so I couldn't find for this being compatible without me personally seeing story poles and if I saw them I'm afraid it would be a problem. Beaudin: Commissioner Allen, can I just ask? The one foot setback; is this the mixed use building that's of concern? EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 13 of 21