Planning Commission Regular Meeting/Work Session

ForemanstaffUnder these proposed amendments, what would happen if a property owner were to convert an existing non-conforming structure to an ADU would be to go through the Board of Zoning Appeals. And the BZA is really set up to handle exactly that kind of situation, so special exceptions that can be judged on a case-by-case basis. And that's really the default set up within our zoning ordinance, and staff just feels that that's the most equitable avenue for judging non-conforming structures with this kind of situation so that's non-conformities and we went over parking and lot coverage and whatnot so if there's any questions on those i'd be glad to talk about them

Speaker 2maximum of six stories. Here are some renderings. On the left is from Street 2 looking north towards the plaza that would be located beside Safeway. And then on the right is the intersection of Street 1 and Street 2. Here's some more renderings. On the left is from Democracy Lane looking east. And then on the right intersection of University Drive and Street 1. These renderings show the facade updates for Safeway and then the plaza that would replace the former bank drive-through. So the applicant is requesting a rezoning from CR Commercial Retail and CG Commercial general with proffers to PDM plan development mixed-use and the transition overlay district a master development plan special exceptions for height

sidewalk width and parking and I've already talked about the special exceptions for height and sidewalk width but the applicant is also request requesting a special exception for parking and the parking ratio minimum for the proposed residential use is 1.5 spaces per unit and the applicant is proposing 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit the applicant is also requesting a major certificate of appropriateness for architecture and landscaping so staff have provided the applicant with comments on their second submission and these are the outstanding issues. There's a longer description of some of these issues provided in your packet as attachment nine. So based on staff comments in the first submission, the applicant provided staff with a few alternatives