Conditional needs a staff review to get permitted
Use Review typically requires public notice and potentially planning board OK
Prohibited = you can't built it. Duh.
Right now, if more than 20% of the units in a project were efficiency, it requires use review. Staff is suggesting making them completely allowable. No use review.
Staff: Establishment that provides personal services: bike repair, hair salon, laundry, massage, etc. Staff is recommending moving that to a prohibited use.
Carl Guiller: There's a policy in the plan about protecting mobile home districts from other uses. There could hypothetically be a personal service biz that displaces a mobile home.
I think the answer is that if you live there, it's still allowable. You just can't replace a mobile home with a building where the primary function was not residential
Karl Guiler, senior planner: It's possible
Cool with the creation of a new use category, Limited
OK with restricting where offices can be to "mitigate the jobs:housing imbalance"... except for Brockett, who wants to exclude the 29th Street area from that. (Folsom to 30th ish)
Brockett: As proposed, I think it's too restrictive. (At 25% office)
Regarding efficiency units, council seems to want to make them a Limited use, which would allow them without a use review if a certain % of them were affordable.
Jones: We say smaller is better; but we're not incentivizing that.
Brockett: But isn't that a demolition question?
Carlisle: Just bc it's smaller doesn't make it more affordable.
Jones: Yeah but if it's bigger, it's *really* not affordable. We're not being consistent. It's not the size; it's the demolition we need to address.
Carlisle: Same thing with west Pearl.
Jones: So do we need to protect those?
Sure, council agrees.