13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Nagler: Just to follow up, and sort of come down to it, the conversation between staff and the applicant has really turned on the ground floor of Residence 1 which is the ground floor of the residence on the street on Old Bernal and the amount of parking. There is some discussion about the materials and architecture and such, but the discussion of whether it can sort of shoehorn into the current designation or with a slight change of policy is really about the ground floor and its proximity to the street. Weinstein: Yes, that's right. That's the gist of our conversations with the applicant. I do want to add that on the staff level at least, there's a lot to like about this project. There are a lot of things we really like about it. The architecture is something we like and the applicant has worked really hard with his design team on adjusting the architecture and making it even better. We like the fact that there's a mixture of residential units on the site, really small studio units, plus single family is great. So I don't want to understate the good things about the project as well, but we're just sort of debating internally how much residential should be on this site. Commissioner Nagler: It really comes down to that ground floor about one building, right? I mean, as far as where the conversation has at least gone between the staff and applicant. Beaudin: So we're in a position now where all ground floor office is not practical. It hasn't happened and we're in a position now where we can get a strong office corner and the possibility of, as Commissioner Nagler was mentioning, that residential unit fronting the street, has the potential for flexible space on the ground floor, and not the entire ground floor of that unit. So that's interesting to us and we think it meets the intent of the Code. We're trying to keep that on the dash as we're looking ahead because we all recognize that the existing Downtown Specific Plan is not functioning the way it should for certain areas of the downtown. Commissioner Balch: Can I just follow-up with you on that Gerry. I understand it comes back to the parking question. Given the site constraints, if the second residence did go as we're saying here, we'd be shy of potentially seven spaces or maybe less depending on the square footage of that, correct? Am I interpreting that correctly? Beaudin: That's the parking discussion that we need to have. This is a Planned Unit Development application. The applicant has the ability to request different parking requirements relative to the Code. We can, again, go back to the base zoning district which would apply anywhere in town and talk about the amount of parking that would be required for a commercial use like this. There is some possibility you could share the parking behind the mixed use building for that second mixed use building in this diagram. There are ways that you can play with the parking requirement if there's a desire to do that and we could talk a little bit about that. Chair Ritter: I think when we go through these, we might have questions. Is that okay? Commissioner Allen: Could I ask one question that's not on here at this moment? It's regarding RHNA. Could you just recap the implications of RHNA to add residences at this point in time? Do we receive any credit? EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 11 of 22