PC 052516 - Laserfiche WebLink

this project will come with affordable housing dollars that will go into other efforts in town to increase and diversify our housing stock. And you know that but I wanted to just put it out there for the conversation tonight. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Chair Ritter: (A) Does the Planning Commission support demolishing the home and any related accessory structures? Chair Ritter: If we all agree, it's an easy one. All Commissioners: Yes. Chair Ritter: (8) Should the project be revised to conform to the existing Downtown Specific Plan Office designation (office on ground- floors and multi - family on the upper - levels)? And (C) If not, does the Planning Commission support site specific amendments to the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (and zoning district for this site)? Commissioner Allen: I'll go first. My answer is 'yes'. I believe this should be consistent with the spirit of the current General Plan and Specific Plan. I do recognize that long- term traditional office may not be appropriate, but there's an effort going on to look at that. I don't think it's appropriate for us to jump the gun and you might say overdo the residential side of this because it may be the answer is more retail belongs here. And the third point I want to make is that I think if we didn't support the spirit of the current zoning, it's very dangerous right now because we're setting a precedent for other properties around there. Mike mentioned the 10 unit apartment building that's right around the corner that's already approached staff about wanting to get away from Office and do something different. So I think we need to be very, very careful about jumping the gun and so that's why I think we need to follow the spirit. Commissioner O'Connor: I'm conflicted. I don't understand why this one street is zoned Office when right next door it's not. And if we get away from the Office, and maybe I am jumping the gun, I think we're going to get away from Office down here if the City offices move, I don't think we're going to retain Office down here. So I'm concerned about having a project come through where we enforce a different parking regulation than something in a year or two or three from now we're going to change it all when everyone else is going to be off the hook. So I'm conflicted on this one because I'm usually pretty tight on parking. I just don't understand why this one has the Office designation; I mean I understand it's zoned that way, but why. Commissioner Allen: May I ask a process question to Commission O'Connor's answer? That would be, we're going to discuss parking later and not now. Is it fair for us —when I was answering this I was setting aside the parking question for a later discussion and I was just looking at the question asked about the intent of the zoning in terms of mixed use versus residence. So if we just stick with that purview of this question, we might be able to answer that and deal with parking later. That would be my suggestion on how this might be answered, and I'm wondering if that changes this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 16 of 28