PC 071316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Ritter: Well, I want to go back to what Commissioner Nagler said. You know, we spent a lot of time at the workshop and we suggested a bunch of things and the applicant came back and actually listened to us in my opinion and did a lot of what we asked. The other thing I'm haunted by is that I see that office space for lease sign that's a permanent sign and I just think it's silly that this is an office zone and you've got a space for lease that's a permanent rental space for office and we can't even find tenants for so long they made a permanent sign out of it, so I am in favor of what they're doing here with the redesign. The siding; I agree with Commissioner Allen on the metal. There are options I think. You can have things that are metal that don't look like metal so I think that was a good point. The setbacks, if you drive down Augustine, there's some other residences along that street that are real close to the road, so I don't think it's out of place the way staff and the applicant have put it together on the corner there, and as far as parking, I'm always in favor of more parking on your own property. If you can get parking on your own property and make it work, if we can get an extra space, I would be in favor of shifting without losing space on the street. As far as story poles, I'm struggling on that one because usually we use those to show neighbors where hillside views are and a lot of times it's just to help out the neighborhood to understand it, especially if it's an infill. This is on the corner of a busier street, so I'm indifferent on the story poles on this one because they're all still within the limits. They're not going above what the code says and it is on a corner so that makes me feel to not make it such a demand. Commissioner Balch: I actually think I'm probably a little closer with Commissioner Allen on the story poles. I think we probably should have put them up. I personally would like to see them up before the Council if we're as a body supporting that as staff's recommendation. One of the things with the parking for me is that I really like the concept of what you're doing here with the micro - units /lofts. The floor plan of the mixed building with the second and third floor and the loft on that, you know, it's not like the third floor is the same floor size or plan as the ground floor, right. It's obviously tapered, but even much more so because it's only a loft. It's truly just a little bedroom up there and so with the pitch and stuff. I greatly appreciate the massing comment and conversation because I think that is important to keep in mind. I will tell you that hearing this, I would struggle immensely on how do you get adjoining zonings well designed, right? An office zoning touching a residential zoning on a street in an area where we think it's going to be developed in the future with the whole civic center plan, and I would hate to see this die because it's a little bit ahead of its time on the block. I'll just say that. Someone has to go first and frankly the neighbor who's building the front as the existing residence, the middle as the two -story and the back as a two -story as well, but the same units with the parking in the middle. It is exactly the transition type of building that I think we should have next to this because here you're doing your mixed use and residential and your next unit or block over is your true residential and it's a little lower. I just think it does blend well. I would hate to see us hit too high of a threshold to develop a site that would be unattainable. And I really like, and I don't know why I'm so stuck on it, but I really like the concept of the micro -units and if the parking killed it and you would change the application, I personally would find that a loss. Chair Ritter: And I'll agree. I think we need affordable housing downtown. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 27 of 38