PC 052516 - Laserfiche WebLink

circumstance of the past. So, if it's a reasonable expectation that the civic center site is going to become this new vital mixed use area, then the question becomes what's appropriate for right across the street? It strikes me as what's appropriate across the street is what the applicant is proposing or something very similar. So it turns it seems to me on the issue of what happens with this secondary building: Residence 1. To me, that's where if I were the applicant wanting guidance from the Planning Commission, I'd be asking, okay, let's just really focus on what we think about Residence 1. And on that point, I would ask the applicant and architect to put some creativity into what might be done with that building to both re- orient it more towards the street and also potentially use part of the first floor for mixed use and if it isn't feasible or if it somehow doesn't work in the context of what the applicant is attempting to do, I would vote for the project as presented.. Commissioner Brown: So, to me this is a cornerstone property in that I think all of the properties around are looking at this project and we are setting a precedent. My only concern is that we're getting ahead of the Specific Plan update. The specific planning process would take into account what should we do with the O space, and so the conservative approach would be staff's which is in the spirit of the O you could look at changing Residence 1 into mixed use which I think we all agree that there's probably not the demand there for office, so if you make it office /retail, you're more flexible and you're setting yourself up for whatever is the outcome of that Specific Plan redesign. In summary, what I would say is if you're not willing to wait for the Specific Plan redesign, if you approve the project as it is, you're essentially setting a precedent and you're essentially pre- dating that Specific Plan redesign. My advice would be to wait for the Specific Plan, and one of my questions is what the timeline is for that in terms of whether that's fair or not. And if you're not willing to wait, my recommendation would be to David's point, put some architect time into considering making that other building more flexible. In terms of the project itself, the look of the building, what it looks like now, it is miles ahead. I love the project, I love the architecture, love the mixed use, but that would be my advice. Commissioner O'Connor: What's the timeline on the Specific Plan? Beaudin: We're going to start this summer and it's a 12 -24 month process, depending on our public outreach and scope of work that we felt for the effort. Chair Ritter: The job of the Planning Commission is to do it in the spirit of what the need is at the time when applicants come forward, right? We have deviated from Specific Plans or General Plan amendments before, haven't we? 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 19 of 28