_Minutes_June 26, 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

all of the public comments received about the visibility impact. Right now, one of the criteria is that it is designed to minimize visibility from the commercial street front. She did not know how that criteria can be vetted absent having a PUD. She thinks of all of the discussion that went on with Spring Street early on that changed that design significantly. It still did not hit the mark from the public's perspective. However, that vetting would not go on absent having a PUD. Commissioner Brown said the Spring Street example pre-dated his time on the Planning Commission, but given the current proposals, if they were to eliminate requiring a PUD as mandatory for all residential projects in the downtown based on everything else in place, the Spring Street property would not require a PUD anyway. Mr. Beaudin clarified that there were parking issues with the Spring Street project, that they cannot meet standards on site by maintaining the commercial establishment, so it fell into a PUD in that particular instance. Spring Street is the counter to that argument where there is commercial in the front and they managed to park the commercial and residential on site. In some instances, if standards cannot be met on site, they get put into a PUD process. If they can be met, then they would be in a design review process. Commissioner Brown said some of the feedback from the public is that the way it is written today, with any extension change or something else, any residential property would fallen victim to the PUD process which he thinks is expensive and burdensome. Commissioner Ritter concurred. Chair Allen said they are not talking about all residential property, but Spring Street. Assuming it came in meeting all of the other standards which, in the end it did, it could be built if there was no review. The question is how to deal with this vague area of minimizing visibility and ensuring compatibility. Mr. Beaudin responded that this is the difficulty of looking back and trying to apply the current standards. It is not possible to do it. In minimizing visibility, and it is visible from Main Street, they would have that conversation through the design review process. There would be different conversations about the residential projects that have been built in recent years based on the policy language put into the draft Downtown Specific Plan. Commissioner Ritter added that he believes technology is better and they will start seeing much better presentations about visibility, what it does and could look like. Chair Allen said in using something like that as an example she asked if it goes to the ZA who then review it and decides it could be controversial and bumps it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Beaudin said design review for new buildings would come to the Planning Commission for review. Design review findings are a little different than the PUD findings, but it is a process where they would still have to show compliance with the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, zoning and environmental processes, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 27 June 26, 2019 asked by Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 27 June 26, 2019 d disappointment with what was being presented, stating the PDA Vitality Committee began meeting and red-lining the 2002 DSP in 2013. They provided it to staff in 2014 and have been awaiting this process. She said although there have been wins, there Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 27 June 26, 2019