PC 120915 - Laserfiche WebLink

suggesting that it is a possibility that could have a different impact than what Commissioner Balch suggested. Commissioner O'Connor noted that the Commission also directed at the Work Session that if a unit was lost in the re- design, the office /retail building at 4,000 square feet could be reduced to something smaller to create an area of parking. He indicated that he is not designing the new project but is just saying that if square footage is taken out, some ground square footage should be freed up in some way. Commissioner Balch agreed that is a very valid point and that he would actually consider making it a condition to remove unit number one and create two to four non - tandem parking spaces, and then move it forward with a re- design. Mr. Beaudin stated that he is a bit concerned that the math might not work and wants to make sure it will add up. Commissioner Balch stated that he has not added it up either but that it was brought up as a discussion so it is a possibility to be considered. Mr. Beaudin replied that it might entail more adjustment. He indicated that the Commission wants to be really clear in its motion to remove one unit and to adjust the width of the other units, which might mean narrowing them in some cases, to ensure that there is enough tandem parking available. He noted that converting those units to non - tandem may entail stretching the footprint such that it might eat into that commercial space a little bit more on the back side. He added that he is not sure taking away one unit will give enough linear footage to put side -by -side parking back for the remaining units. Ms. Seto pointed out that losing a unit would also decrease the demand for two of the parking spaces, and if the parking demand decreases and the design went back to the original proposal, in theory, if it was wide enough, there would be two parking spaces in the garage and two more in the driveway aprons. Commissioner Balch pointed out that the thought about the non - tandem parking is that it at least provides for the visitor parking for the residential units if the two primary cars are required to be parked in the garage. Commissioner Ritter recalled that the applicant had proposed that at the Work Session, and then the Commission directed that they add more commercial, which resulted in moving the building back and having tandem as the only option. Commissioner Balch asked Mr. Grant to comment on this non - tandem /tandem element with a ground floor unit gone and whether non - tandem parking could be accommodated for three residential units on the ground floor. Mr. Grant replied that what the Commission is ignoring is that there is a certain number of units that make this project work. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 9, 2015 Page 35 of 40