2_Exhibits A-C - Laserfiche WebLink

One public comment noted concern with allowing residential behind commercial specific to Main but open to it on side streets. It seems contrary to the goal of increasing vitality on Main even with a right-do-do business ordinance. If this were allowed, housing could be constructed, for example, behind Inklings. The Guidelines are vague and it may open the door to degrade Main. Another example is Spring Street where in their opinion the development was incompatible. Another public comment noted that more housing will require more parking. Another comment noted support for right-to-do business ordinance which has been discussed heavily at the PDA. One public comment noted that living downtown comes with parking and noise concerns. The City should ensure residential built downtown is built correctly, the noise is managed, and downtown is policed correctly. The final comment related to limited parking on Division and a support for the parking lot by the train tracks to be open to the public. Task Force Recommendation The Task Force moved and voted to support staffs recommendation-that is to allow residential entrances in Commercial and Mixed-Use districts as long as the frontage is predominately commercial and to allow ground-floor residential in the Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts if there is a minimum commercial depth of at least 50-feet along Main Street with modifications to staffs recommendation as follows: ground floor residential should only be allowed if the residential is fully parked on-site and there is a "right-to-do business" ordinance. Additionally, the Task Force requested staff review the minimum depth required for side streets as 50-feet may not be the correct depth (Unanimous support). Land Use Discrepancies Staff highlighted the differences between the two maps included in the Specific Plan: Map A- with changes to be adopted as part of Specific Plan, Map B-with changes that will require further research and discussion prior to modifications, and Map C-with property-owner initiated requests (4212 First Street and 475/493 St. John Street). Staff offers a few ways to move forward with the property-owner initiated requests. Option 1 would be to include them in Map A and make the changes to the properties now, Option 2 would be to remove them from the maps and indicate that they can move forward independent of the DSP process, and Option 3 would be to create an overlay for these two properties that would allow residential them with an exception to the requirement for commercial along their frontage. The properties would remain "commercial" but the potential for residential would be added. Further, if residential or mixed use with residential is proposed on these properties, a PUD would still be required. At this time, compliance with the General Plan and Specific Plan would be completed to create flexibility and allow residential with a PUD (and the PUD will still have to go to Planning Commission and City Council). The zoning district would be modified with the PUD. Additionally, the Final EIR with the Specific Plan would address these changes at a program wide level. Project specific environmental review will need to be done at the time of the PUDs. Task Force Direction, Comments, and Questions The Task Force clarified that these properties would remain commercial with an overlay (rather than a new zoning district) maintaining Commercial Zoning but allowing residential if it goes through a PUD process. Additionally, the Task Force confirmed this would only apply to these two properties as they have been involved through the process and requested these changes. One member of the Task Force is concerned the overlay only applying to these two properties may be reactive instead of proactive. One Task Force member noted it seems one of the benefits of the overlay would provide some additional certainty to allow Summary of February 26, 2019 Downtown Specific Plan Update Task Force Meeting Page 5 of 7