18 ATTACH 05-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT like staff to clarify that in terms of the policy that exists today and the Downtown specific guidelines that say an amendment should be done for residential districts, which this will be; and that 30 feet is the maximum height and what that really means. Ms. Harryman stated that Land Use Policy 15 of the Downtown Specific Plan contemplates the City Council initiating an amendment to limit building height in all residential zoning districts in the Downtown, including future Planned Unit Development Districts, to not more than two stories and not more than 30 feet. She pointed out that this is something that is contemplated to come back and look at. She noted that as has already been discussed tonight, there are at least two projects that were mentioned at over 30 feet high: the building in the adjacent parcel at 31 feet, 8 inches tall, and the Angela row houses at 34 feet, 6 inches tall. She added that even if a ceiling of 30 feet were set, there would probably be some kind of exception language to look at on a case-by-case basis for a location like this, but with the principle of probably not three stories and not higher than 30 feet. Chair Allen noted that the Commission has not yet executed the amendment, and the amendment does not mean that this point should be ignored. She asked Ms. Harryman to clarify that her reading is that this is the principle and the intent of residential Downtown, and it is in the policy in the Downtown Specific Plan as an important baseline assumption going in. Ms. Harryman replied that the contemplated direction is to avoid three stories and avoid going over 30 feet high, and the Planning Commission tonight articulated why this particular site is different and why it seemed appropriate in this case to go above 30 feet and above two stories. Garage in Front Commissioner Ritter stated that he is fine with this as long as they are nice-looking garages. Commissioner Nagler stated that this is tied to the mixed-use requirement and that he would very much support a condition of approval requiring that the existing structure forever be used as a commercial retail or whatever the allowed uses are for the structure and that the applicant not have the flexibility over time to use it periodically for residential. He added that he also then thinks that implies that the plaza is important for this whole gestalt of the development, and if that is true, then losing one-third of the plaza to create parking in the back is a sacrifice that is not appropriate to the overall plan. He noted that the implication is that the parking would then be off of the street, and it then becomes a question of whether or not there should be a garage door or not. He stated that he thinks the design of the structure is really quite attractive, and staff has obviously considered this at some length and came down with the side of having garage doors that fit the architectural style of the building, so that is fine from his perspective. Commissioner O'Connor stated that putting the garages in the back also takes away the guest parking out in the front, so now there will be more people parking on the street. He suggested that it might help the people across the street if the garage door be one of DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 11/182015 Page 17 of 22