PC 120915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Charles Huff stated that he enjoyed these meetings going back to the late 1970's and always interesting when developers propose projects in this area without knowing the background of why, for example, there is a certain percentage of commercial near Spring Street. He indicated that he has been involved with a few projects on Spring Street and similar areas where staff has always supported keeping an older house up front and encouraged preserving that one -story look to the neighborhood, such as in Old Stanley Boulevard and in Knuppe's project in the Angela Row area. He noted that it should be that same type of situation here. He questioned why a developer has to have a commercial and a two -story right on Spring Street, why commercial is being brought into the site. He commended the Knuppes on their patience during this whole process Mr. Huff stated that he is not the architect on this project, but he has been involved in a few projects in this area and would like to review a few of the things that have happened on that site over the last 15 or 20 years: first, in 1990, a failed attempt to build a four -story apartment house with underground parking, asking for 100 percent FAR; then in 2002, a dog shelter business which also failed; a pilates studio business in 2008 that did not quite make it; in 2010, the site was offered to the City for purchase as a parking lot; the Japanese garden in 2012; and finally in 2014, an attempt to build five single - family residences, a retail shop, and a public plaza. He noted that all of the projects on this site have been pretty much set back towards the back part of the project; obviously, they all went south, and none were built out. Mr. Huff stated that here is a developer now who has gone way beyond to do what staff is recommending. He indicated that he thinks he could speak for them if they were to have a situation where they could abide by the Spring Street situation in terms of having one -story and residential or some commercial as well. He noted that there were some attempts to put the commercial on the opposite side of the lot that it is on right now, to put the commercial on the Main Street side which was a great idea in itself and would not have offended some people; and now staff got shifted over to the east side of the property. Mr. Huff stated that he did not come here to support one side or the other, but to ask what happened here and why this meeting is taking place. He indicated that the project should go back to the drawing board, and the Planning Commission should review what the best use of this site is in terms of residential and commercial, without having situations where it is being dictated that commercial should be a certain percentage of the property. He urged the Commission to think about the current situation and suggest that the current developers talk with the staff about not being handcuffed into having two -story commercial which is not the best thing to do on Spring Street. Commissioner Piper asked Mr. Huff if her reading is correct that he is not in favor of the way the project is currently proposed. Mr. Huff replied that he is really not in favor of the situation where this is a very unique site, that it has gone through a lot of reiterations over the years, and finally here is someone who comes up and says he will work with it, and he is basically hearing that this is a commercial zone and there should be more commercial. He pointed out that Spring Street is not a commercial zone; it is a historic neighborhood that has one -story residences and a specialty that has the look of residential right up and down the street, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 9, 2015 Page 17 of 40