PC 062619 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Beaudin commented that staff is open to discussing and making changes to the currently proposed policy given this is a public process and there is every intention to keep information transparent. The Task Force has gone through chapter by chapter with the red-lined versions of the document and everything has been publicly available since November 2018, short of the things that had come up in the February Task Force meeting and at City Council direction. Commissioner Ritter inquired about the existing General Plan and amendments made to it and the process for making changes. He noted that there have been six instances where changes were made to the General Plan up until 2015 and possibly a few more afterwards. He asked what the main reason was for these General Plan amendments. Mr. Beaudin responded that the reasons have varied. For example, the 2015 changes related to the Housing Element. The Planning Commission will be reviewing a request for a General Plan Amendment related to Workday, Inc. and an office project in the coming months. The General Plan is a living document, with robust public, Planning Commission and City Council review undertaken whenever changes are proposed. Chair Allen posed a clarifying question regarding corner lots. Her understanding in listening to the City Council's input on ground floor residential was that it needed to be behind commercial on the key streets identified in the downtown plan. She asked staff to confirm if the item about residential visibility on corner lots had been raised because staff had identified it as an implementation issue, or if the City Council was asking staff to re-look at corner lots because it has been brought up as a concern. Mr. Beaudin responded that it became an implementation question for staff in how to evaluate a project that has residential behind commercial on a corner lot if the goal is to minimize visibility. There is a practical question about how to minimize visibility of a corner lot from an adjacent location. The residential is behind from the narrower frontage, but it will be fully exposed from the side. Chair Allen referenced live/work and her understanding from a Task Force meeting was that live/work would not be on the ground floor in commercial areas. In the latest recommendation she is reading that live/work could be allowed anywhere but on Main Street. Therefore, she asked whether this shifted because she would think they would want to have live/work be consistent with whatever the strategy was for ground floor residential. Mr. Beaudin responded that it depends on the configuration of live/work. By code, it is considered a residential use and it is habitable space for living, but the configuration will matter. There could be live/work where there is a commercial use at grade and residential above or residential behind, depending on where it sits in the district. And, staff does not want to preclude live/work because it has a commercial component as well but will be looking at it in the same light as residential use. Chair Allen inquired about how the Planning Commission should be thinking about input on parking issues in this process. Mr. Beaudin suggested continuing to address parking the same way that had been recommended to the Task Force, which is to rely on the existing Downtown Parking Strategy Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 27 June 26, 2019