COM 0018.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AU: So, your intent is not really so, for the record what we are doing for this condition is where the Director is recommending 1.8 stalls, you the Applicant originally is proposing what the Code says which is 1.25 stalls but your intentions is to come in somewhere in between. I just want to clarify what we are dealing with in this condition. Because the Director wants something, Applicant wants something, but your intentions is one thing. Maybe if you can give us a proposed request other than the Commissioner then maybe we can deal with that rather than just, you follow me? ROCK: I think I do, and we have discussed this internally with our development team. One MS.proposal might be to try to split the difference and perhaps set a minimum standard of 1.5 stalls per unit. If I may do the math, I had that in my mind and now I forgot. Let's say it's around a hundred (100) anybody has a calculator. I apologize I should have'l`acthat in front of me. Anyway, at a 1.5 ratio it is somewhat of a compromise positio wher6-_We :can increase the minimum, but we can maintain the window of results that-, -`are, ad"Ceptable for the affordable housing development. Again, our preference is to keegthe window so that thMounty Code establishes the floor, and the ceiling can be anything: Apparently, having as miU4kparking as possible is also a good thing. So, where is the ceiling that. But as a compromise position I think it would be reasonable_from our .standpoint if we did a 1.5 parking ratio requirement because I think with our current site=plan what we anticipate for the review process it should offer enough flex b` l_ iy _that we can mdk6bodest changes if it's necessary and satisfy all the County's cond tiA9 == t_-1.5 on the stall think we are in very good shape for the needs of our residents._ - AU: So, 1.5 stalls would-be off of64-units would-be ninety-six (96). I don't know if the Manager's unit would_ _count but; 6a�units would U;e 96 stalls. So, if that is what the Applicant is requesting my next :q est ;Qns is to�V istian. Ho wF vould we move forward if he is verbally saying he is requesting if, the "—" 41 _5 how would we riiove forward? Or is that an official— YEE: Christian:l'et e -chimed f hristian. YEE: So, o this discussion aro_ and parking we were left with something from the original ordinance thatWsd�there would be zero to 60% more than "—" the minimum requirement. I wished they would bt have opened it up to so much vagueness around that could be I% or there could be 60%. Righi;%W where in there or even zero right. So, part of it was did they mean thirty (30) percent, did` they mean forty-five (45) percent we landed on the number of 1.8 which was something they had shown us that we thought was reasonable and so that's what I put in, Clearly what I wanted was to move away from the vagueness of zero to 60% and to put some kind of harder number in there. Whether or not its 1.5, whether its 1.8 the Commission concern and decide. You heard James's arguments for it. I'm a little concern if we, I know his intentions as that we look at it, I know they are going off their experience in Hawaii and what that number needs to be. I know they want to be able to serve their residents. So, it's this balancing act of us EXHIBIT A (DRAFT) 19