22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Additional Feedback from the Planning Commission In addition to the topics identified in Table 1, at its June 26 meeting the Planning Commission discussed and provided recommendations on a number of other minor topics, summarized below. Staff agrees with each of these Planning Commission recommendations, and requests City Council review and confirm these recommendations. - Outdoor dining: The Planning Commission supported staff's recommendation to allow the Zoning Administrator to be the approving body for Outdoor Dining applications in the MU-T District'. Previously, at its April 24, 2018, meeting, the Task Force recommended that outdoor dining applications in the Mixed Use- Transitional District require review and approval by the Planning Commission. - Story poles / visuals: The Planning Commission supported adding a policy/implementation action to the specific plan to establish standards for story poles and visualizations (e.g. photo simulations) for downtown projects. - Ground-floor residential uses on corner lots: DSP Policy LD-P.17 relates to where ground-floor residential uses may be constructed and the criteria that must be met in order to do so, including treatment of commercial frontages; however it is silent regarding corner properties that may have a primary and a secondary frontage. The Planning Commission discussed this topic at length, and ultimately the majority vote was to not modify the policy; that is, not to provide additional regulations for ground-floor residential uses on corner lots, with the rationale that such conditions could be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the City's review and approval process. - Additional Residential Height with a PUD: As noted in Table 1, both the City Council and Planning Commission supported a maximum height of 30 feet and two stories in residential zoning districts. Staff had initially suggested that text be included in Policy LD-P.46, which addresses residential height limits, to explicitly note that additional height could be approved with a PUD. However, the Planning Commission recommended this language was unnecessary and could be deleted, since any project developer that desires to deviate from established standards may apply for a PUD, irrespective of whether or not it is indicated by the DSP. - Draft DSP Policy LD-P.49: This policy in the draft specific plan requires improvement of existing buildings and landscaping on the same property when new residential infill projects are proposed. In response to public comments that 1 The Planning Commission also strongly suggested that the City Council consider a right-to-do business ordinance. In advance of the April City Council meeting, staff reviewed Livermore's ordinance and suggested the updated DSP allow for additional flexibility in how the City could address the concern about conflicts between residential and commercial uses, such as with a condition of approval for residential projects. City Council direction was to use methods such as conditions of approval to address potential conflicts between downtown residential and commercial uses. Page 12 of 18