PC 062619 - Laserfiche WebLink

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. Commissioner Brown asked if the Planning Commission agreed with the City Council's recommendation or the Task Force's recommendation which is there should be no PUD requirement for all residential in the downtown. Chair Allen said she thought there was a hybrid staff proposed. Ms. Clark confirmed the suggested policy language was on page 6 of 15 of the agenda report. Chair Allen said the City Council agreed with the initial recommendation in April that a PUD be required just specifically for residential projects that were behind commercial in the designated areas. They agreed that a PUD was warranted there. They did not ask staff to take that further. It was after the last Task Force that staff added the idea of a PUD for any residential, including the remodel because of the sensitivity of the public to residential. She said the hybrid asks to step back and look at whether there are certain occasions where a PUD makes sense. One is to just do it only with what the City Council originally agreed to which is new ground floor residential behind commercial. This is an option they have to say yes or no to. It does not mean they go any further. Another option is requiring a PUD given Barone's has been a concern of some of the public, requiring a PUD for certain residential projects if they are of a certain scale that could be risky. Commissioner Ritter noted this will be a PUD because it is outside of the normal guidelines and standards for that lot. Chair Allen stated she did not believe it was. Mr. Beaudin stated that this site is zoned Downtown Commercial. If commercial remained at front and residential in rear, then it would warrant a similar process to the Spring Street project. If there was a large site in the downtown, they would hold a workshop. It would not necessarily be a PUD but would warrant that consultation. Commissioner Brown said when looking at the Task Force recommendation or the City Council recommendation regarding Barone's, the Task Force recommendation was to incorporate a residential overlay which does not mean it was approved for rezoning. The City Council's recommendation was to incorporate a map annotation to note potential for future mixed-use subject to approval of a PUD rezoning for that. So, a PUD is required regardless of whether the Planning Commission went with a February 26 Task Force recommendation or the City Council recommendation. Chair Allen said this is not correct because the annotation that Councilmember Kathy Narum provided was only specific to zoning if they came in with a PUD for mixed use zoning. Then in fact, they would require a PUD. But Barone's could come in with a commercial zoning request Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 27 June 26, 2019 hair 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. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 27 June 26, 2019 rap around the corner seems like overkill where this is an issue that can be resolved by the ZA. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 27 June 26, 2019 ne 26, 2019