CCMIN020216 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to Councilmember Pentin, Ms. Olsen stated that she did not recall making the statement that was alleged regarding "recruiting and retaining vibrant retail and to put residential directly behind." Steve Grimes, 27 year resident, expressed concerns that families will be moving into the proposed units, not just 2 people and this will likely increase the number of cars and drivers per unit. He inquired as to the amount and use of the parking in-lieu fees that have been collected over the past 20 years, as he does not see a decrease in the parking impacts. Four spaces will not be adequate for the massing of the commercial building. He urged the Council to send this project back to the Planning Commission for further study. Hwa J. Kim, property owner on Main Street, stated the building will be very nice and parking is not his main concern. He finds no reason to refuse this project and agrees with it. Mark Kearns said he lives on the east side of the project, and stated that in 2005 he purchased a depressed property that had been vacant for 15 years. He rebuilt it and brought it back to the Mission Revival style as a single family home. He was not allowed to take it to a second story and has a problem with parking. He still has staff members that park far away from the commercial unit he owns that walk a significant distance to work. He would like to see the property developed, but would like to see more of a setback and less massing. In response to the comments made by public speakers, Mr. Grant applicant presented slides showing the ratio of commercial to residential and he feels it is very appropriate to have the bulk of commercial on Spring Street, as that is what the City wants. There is tuck under parking and they have tried to accommodate what the City wants from a commercial/retail point of view on Spring Street. None of the properties on Main Street provide on-site parking, and the applicant is also paying in-lieu fees in acknowledgement of the parking loss. The massing proposed is well under what the Municipal Code allows, including not building to the property line and only 30 feet high. The CC zone allows construction no set backs to property line 40 feet high. He proposed a parking concept that would allow them to apply the in-lieu fees toward a parking lot in the Downtown area. Councilmember Pentin inquired about what happened to the 19 proposed spaces for the retail component. Mayor Thorne closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Narum commented that the commercial component of the project increases the parking requirement and expressed concern that we are trying to do too much on the commercial side in regard to the massing. Staff stated that the residential development is driving this project, and mixed-use is what they are trying to achieve in the Downtown area. Director of Community Development Beaudin explained that mixed-used is a higher priority and staff is trying to pursue a more "area-wide" approach to Downtown parking. Mayor Thorne appreciated the work the applicant has put into the architecture. He expressed concerns regarding the tandem parking, as he believes it will not work in the Downtown area. He would prefer smaller massing and continued to express concerns about Downtown noise complaints. He suggested the applicant take the Council's input and that the Council allow him to bring it back with proposed changes. At this time, he cannot support the project as proposed. Vice Mayor Narum supports mixed-use for this property, but not commercial all the way to the back. Destination tenants are hard to find, and empty space is worse than having nothing. She supports the condition disclosing the noise in the Downtown area. She is concerned about the massing as seen from the perspective of the single story houses on Main Street. She would like to push everything back, including the second story, and to have a little more view-scape down Spring Street for those other houses. She supports Mayor Thorne's suggestion to give the applicant an opportunity make City Council Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 2,2016