13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Weinstein: Yes, there have been General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Amendments, including one from Mike Carey's project up on St. Mary and Peters. I'd probably characterize it a bit differently. It seems like the first priority should be staying true to the planning documents that we have, with amendments being allowed if there are extraordinary circumstances or there's a clear gap or missing tooth in the Specific Plan or General Plan. Chair Ritter: All right. (D) Does the Planning Commission support parking facilities that are shared by the office/retail space and upper apartment units? Commissioner Brown: Yes. Commissioner Nagler: But what do you think about the number? Commissioner Balch: Oh well, that's the next question. Commissioner Brown: He's giving me only one word questions. Chair Ritter: Are they shared by the office/retail and upper unit apartments? Commissioner Nagler: It sort of doesn't matter what the principle is. The question is how many spaces do you need for all the use, right? And what's the right way to get to the number of spaces whether you define it as melding the two or not, it sort of doesn't matter to me. Commissioner Balch: I would agree with Commissioner Nagler. It's an interesting way the question was put because I think by the nature of it, they are going to be shared. They're in the same building and they're accessing call it mixed use building 1. I don't have a problem with it. I don't think it has to be designated similar to the Knuppe project where I believe there was a handicapped stall that could be used for anyone, even though it would say resident only. Now that I think about it, we did have that in at the end, right? So I don't have a problem with it. Chair Ritter: Yes. Commissioner O'Connor: Yes. Commissioner Allen: I'm torn on this and the reason I'm torn is for this specific project on this site with a 300-square-foot apartment building I think one car is fine. I always worry about precedent. The Knuppe project we did not allow sharing. We absolutely did not and so I always worry when we start bending rules because of the issue of precedent. So to the degree that we did agree to this, I think we should be very, very clear in the staff report and everything else about why we are doing it so that it doesn't set a precedent just to be done loosely everywhere else. I worry about that. Chair Ritter: (E) If not, would the Planning Commission support having the applicant/developer pay in-lieu fees or would the Planning Commission prefer that the parking requirements be met on-site? Commissioner Allen: Well, again I said I would be open to that for this so then the in-lieu fee would be okay or maybe even not required. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 16 of 22