Laserfiche WebLink
~^ options would be handled. Mr. Bocian noted that it was not intended that if there were <br />four names on the lease, four people could buy units. While it was not spelled out in the <br />document, the intention was that there was an opportunity to buy the unit at a discounted <br />price. Staff would clarify that language in the document. <br />Page 6 <br />Acting Chairperson Fox noted that she liked the tenant relocation assistance program <br />(Item F.1.). She inquired whether that would apply to the seniors, low-, and <br />very-low-income households that were allowed to stay on a lease extension. Mr. Bocian <br />confirmed that would be the case. <br />Paee 7 <br />Regarding Section 17.04.070 (Public Hearing Required), Acting Chairperson Fox would <br />like to see a Planning Commission hearing. She believed that in many cases, they would <br />require pazking ordinance vaziances or some sort of physical modification of the property <br />in order to meet the pazking requirements. She also believed that the process should be <br />similaz to that used when new owners took over an existing project. Mr. Bocian noted <br />that any planning-related matter, such as parking or a variance issue, would go to the <br />Planning Commission through the normal course of action. The final decision on the <br />conversion would be handled by City Council, and the decision regarding the affordable <br />~ housing agreement would be handled by the Housing Commission. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. <br />Mr. Chazles Clazk noted that two yeazs ago, he bought the property that initiated this <br />process. He agreed that parking was an issue and added that they had to configure the <br />property to reduce the number of units in order to meet the pazking requirements. At the <br />time he was looking at the property, it included a 15-percent below-market-rate <br />inclusionary units. He would be willing to accept the 25 percent and noted that parking <br />would still be an issue. He would like to get a variance on those units to have one <br />parking space per unit. He believed that having two pazking spaces per unit would make <br />it more difficult to improve the property. He noted that more than 40 percent of the <br />condominium units were rented. If the pazking requirements were not reduced, he would <br />have to demolish two units and would go from 51 units to 43 units. He would be able to <br />make the single space a garage or covered parking space and would be able to meet the <br />25 percent. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 18, 2006 Page 17 of 22 <br />