Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 24, 2021 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />Zuccaro confirmed and stated that example tenants could be accountants or a therapy <br />office in the home. Home occupation limited the number of people in the house at one <br />time and required no external effects of the business in the suburban environment. <br />Williams asked if there were any live -work situations downtown. <br />Zuccaro replied that he was not aware of any. He clarified that this proposal would not <br />include live -work as the residential units would be only residential. Home occupation <br />was allowed anywhere in the City in the Code. The difference for this proposal was <br />requesting that if a resident had a home occupation they could they have signs, based <br />on the logic that this was a mixed -use commercial area. <br />Williams asked if other home occupation uses would start asking for signs elsewhere in <br />the city if this were approved. <br />Zuccaro replied that he didn't anticipate those requests and explained that they would <br />end up before the Board of Adjustment for a zoning variance. <br />Williams asked if this was based on the downtown core commercial area. <br />Zuccaro confirmed. <br />Brauneis asked how many residential units were in the blue -shaded core area. <br />Zuccaro replied that there were a few downtown and a few more in the transition area. <br />He gave the example of residential units south of Moxie and noted that there were some <br />historic homes in the core area. <br />Brauneis asked about economic or fiscal impacts. <br />Zuccaro replied that they did not produce models for this kind of development. He noted <br />that there was economic stability in taking what was commercial/office and creating <br />residential, and that there were service costs to City. From a downtown vitality and <br />economic stability standpoint, this transition helped activate downtown at different times <br />of day and there was a need for residential use in the City overall. He stated that these <br />types of developments were discussed in the Framework Plan, which contemplated a <br />mix of residential through the SRU process to support commercial downtown. <br />Brauneis asked if staff anticipated any sound conflicts with Steinbaugh Pavilion. <br />Zuccaro replied that there was some concern and staff had talked extensively with the <br />applicant about nearby loud activities. He noted that only certain people would want to <br />live in this location and they would be aware that they were living in a downtown area. <br />Erik Hartronft, 950 Spruce Street, stated that his office was in the building in the <br />proposal. He stated that the proposal was giving back two street spaces and that mixed - <br />use benefitted businesses nearby. He added that there was a natural flow of parking for <br />office use in day and residential use at night and that the parking was more than <br />adequate and that it was more efficient to use part of the parking lot for an additional <br />