PC 071316 - Laserfiche WebLink

not allowed in your home but could be used in a mixed use, as I presume, right? Because that would qualify for that situation, right? Because you cannot have an employee when you work at your home, but this would allow this person to have their employee in their office, correct? Amos: You could have an employee if you apply for a permit, a non - exempt home occupation permit. You could have it in that capacity. Commissioner Balch: Okay, maybe I didn't catch it then, so I guess what I'm saying is that I'm supporting more flexibility with it than just the non - residential element in Residence 1 but I really appreciate where we've gotten to. Commissioner Allen: I want to start off with Commissioner Nagler's comment too that I appreciate the creativity and the architecture. I actually like it a lot. The use of materials — I think we need to be consistent where we just did guidelines that are crystal clear in certain areas, so I'd like to see an alternative to siding and I am okay with the roofs since the guidelines do give us some flexibility there. On mixed use for Residence 1, 1 am not okay with supporting this project if we do not define this as Office. The reason is that we're not going for a General Plan Amendment and this project, right or wrong, in today's weird environment is zoned Office, and we're sort of working with this to create a mixed use. But we've got to keep some amount of office business in there or we really aren't doing what we're saying we're doing, and right now the project, as of the workshop, the project was less than 10% office business and it was over 90% residence. If we do add this 300 square feet for business, at least it puts us over 10 %. We're probably sitting at 12% office, but essentially we have a residential project for the most part and that is not consistent as I've heard staff in their report and as I read the zoning and this project should demand going for a General Plan Amendment if we go that way. So, that's my reason for requiring Residence 1 to be a business. Commissioner Balch: The mixed use in Residence 1? Commissioner Allen: The mixed use of Residence 1. 1 mean I'm right on the edge with even that bumping up, but I understand why we're there. On parking, there is a new piece of information that came up in workshop. At the workshop we were under the belief from the information we had from Mr. Carey that the residence next door was required to have one parking spot for a studio and as he said today, he was saying the residence next door had one parking spot they were required to have and in fact we learned today from staff that it's 1.5; that the residence next door and the RM district requires 1.5 parking spots per apartment unit. Correct me if that changes but that's what I heard you say, so that changes my thinking of where I was at. If that's really the rules, I think we need to be fair and consistent with that thinking versus giving this property a better deal than someone else. So I would say the math would come up with the three studios being 1.5. That equals 4.5 units. The new commercial space for Residence 1 is one, so that's another one and then the commercial that's in the multi -use building is three so if my math's right, that's 8.5 spots of parking that would be required. And someone's got to figure out how to do it. I'm not in favor of curb cuts if it means a street spot is lost. Traditionally if a street spot is lost, we also require someone to give it back. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 23 of 38