PC 120915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch clarified that profitability is not the Commission's concern and asked Mr. Grant if he thought that it was a plausible design. Mr. Grant stated that he understands profitability or financial feasibility is not the concern of the Commission; however, mathematically, taking out one 25- linear -foot unit will not create three or four two -car garages. Commissioner O'Connor stated that what is being considered are three additional garage parking spots for the three remaining units, which would be equivalent to about 30 linear feet. He noted that shaving off five linear feet from the commercial building, added to the 25 linear feet from the unit to be removed, would result is 30 linear feet. Mr. Grant stated that they started at one point, and the Commission's direction was to add more commercial, and to get as close as possible to that, they shrunk the garages and aprons of the residential units. He pointed out that this is Downtown, not a suburban site, so a one -car garage with tandem drive makes sense. He noted that he is trying to do a project that makes financial sense or the Knuppes will walk. Commissioner Balch pointed out that tandem parking does take away the visitor element to the residents. Mr. Grant stated that the visitor parking will be handled by the commercial parking after hours. Commissioner O'Connor stated that no one knows who is going to occupy these units. He added that this is California, and no one knows how many people are going to move into one of these three - bedroom, three - and -a -half baths and only have one care even though they are in the Downtown. Mr. Grant indicated that they have to design for practicality and for the logic behind this. He stated, for example, that the residents in all the units have two cars; their guests will park on Spring Street, the same way any other guest parks. He noted that all the residents on Spring Street live in houses with a one -car garage and a driveway apron. Commissioner O'Connor stated that what he is trying to say is that at some point, a critical mass will be reached, and what is being done is no longer possible. He noted Mr. Grant's statement that everybody's guest or everybody's commercial customer can park on Spring Street, but there is no parking left on Spring Street. Mr. Grant stated that he understands that; but it is also understood that when there is retail on a downtown main street and that retail is forced around the corner and is turned into a residential neighborhood as the Commission wanted, parking is not required for the new retail on the main street. He added that a little mini -park does not provide parking, but it still brings in customers and tenants. Chair Allen clarified that an existing building has a different zoning, as well as some of the other existing projects; however, this property has the space, and the guidelines are very clear. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 9, 2015 Page 36 of 40