PC 071316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch moved to forward Case PUD -118 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval by making the findings in the staff report and with the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval: (1) remove the words "unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer" from Condition No. 83; (2) add a condition to substitute the metal siding for a different material at the discretion of the Director of Community Development; (3) add a condition to relocate the curb cut to add one additional parking space onsite, in conjunction with tree protection measures identified by an arborist; and (4) add a condition to change the bathroom in Residence 1 to a two -piece or shower configuration instead of tub. The Planning Commission also strongly recommended the applicant install story poles prior to the City Council hearing. Commissioner Nagler seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Balch, Nagler, Ritter NOES: Commissioner Allen ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and O'Connor Resolution No. PC- 2016 -22 approving Case PUD -118, was entered and adopted as motioned. 7. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Allen: I have something, and it has to do with this whole story pole discussion, and what I realized and I'm going to test it with you guys and I'm going to look for staff for some thoughts, but there is a house that I was part of a unanimous approval last year that's now under construction on St. Mary's Street. It's right next to the Mike Carey project and next to the plaza. I approved that based on the staff report and answers to my questions that were I think good guesses which you would not be able to see the house. The developer said this flat out to my question and it's even in the minutes; "You won't be able to see that house from St. Mary's Street because it will be blocked by the salon." And the staff report and feedback, no one contradicted that. And the staff report said it would be minimal and that everyone could view minimally differently, but I received feedback from some residents that were really shocked by it so I went out and checked it out. You can see it. So the question is, what can we do and I talked with staff a little bit. The question's really looking forward. It is what it is for now. We encountered the same thing today with this project and we each have a different vision of what mass is and what compatibility is. So, I wanted to get staff's feedback on what we can do to get more proactive ahead of time in dealing with this so that we can make the best decisions and each of us have a common picture of at least what the thing is that we're looking at. And I also noticed that when I was looking at the minutes from a Council meeting two years ago, when they approved the historic guidelines, they actually have a point in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 32 of 38