13 - Laserfiche WebLink

I know the PUD allows for some flexibility but I don't know how it would be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood there. I'm just concerned that staff is supporting this when the same thing about eight months back was not supported. I haven't seen any story poles so I don't know if that's something that's going to come up. I'd like to see this project undertake PG&E undergrounding of the electrical lines on that street. The other concern I have is about Residence 3's setback to the north. It probably has a five-foot setback from what I can see here to my property line. You know, this is something I'd like to thank Mike on. He reached out to me and I support the rezoning of this into a residential neighborhood. I think it adds value to the property there, but what I don't support is three-story buildings and other concerns I've raised. So I hope I get some communication back. I think the general process about how the City communicates back to people who commented is probably not the best because I did email the planner on duty about my concerns. I didn't get any notifications back from the work session, so in the future I hope the City has a way to communicate back to citizens who have responded in general. But in a nutshell, you know my concerns are around the three-stories and the parking spots. I think we need 15 parking spots from my calculations. Thank you. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Ritter: Okay, so if there are no more speaker cards, we'll close it to the public hearing and bring it back for questions of staff. I'll just start. Based on the last speaker, the next door neighbor, can you help us answer some of those questions please? Let's start with the three-story question. I know we brought that up before and what makes this one different? Weinstein: So I mean there are a couple of differences here. And we're definitely sympathetic to the issue of consistency. That's something that we strive for and I think what we're often up against is the fact that each site where there's a project proposed is a little different. This one is a site that's right on Bernal and Augustine. The streets are fairly wide. Bernal at least has more traffic. It's designated for office uses in the Downtown Specific Plan. Mr. Damireddy's project on the other hand was an infill project in the back of an existing single family residence and Mr. Cintrone who also spoke raised concerns about the height of that project, and it was clear from looking at the initial plans for Mr. Damireddy's project that a three-story house on that site really would tower over the house that was right next to it in a way that this project wouldn't. We worked really closely with Mr. Damireddy and he was very cooperative actually with us in re-designing his project, and we ended up with I think the number of units that he wanted but we reduced the height of the project so it seemed in that case it was a win/win situation that reduced the height, got the same number of units he initially wanted, the parking was accommodated with a smaller building, so again, I think it's an issue of context. We feel that three-story buildings on this site closer to Bernal are appropriate while a three-story building further into the residential neighborhood would not be. Chair Ritter: And the other one was the comments communicating back. Did we just miss an email, or...I don't know if we have an answer to that? EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 7 of 21