PC 062619 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown said he thinks the policy seems to be overly burdensome. Mr. Beaudin provided an example, of a nearby project on Augustine Street where applicants have come in with a little bungalow home on the front and they want to put two or three units in the back. They are talking about significant new rental income coming to the property. The front of the property and the driveway along the side all looks the same from the front, but now there are new units in the back and no upgrade or tie in with the existing residential unit or with landscaping for the property. The neighbors get all of the impacts of new development with none of the improvements that come with it if that house is on the front. He explained that the idea here is specific to residential properties and not mixed use properties; that if someone is going to invest in the downtown in a way that puts additional development into the community they should enhance the front property or the other pieces of the property that exist today. It is not meant to be punitive or burdensome but meant to enhance the neighborhood as they increase the amount of development on the site. It is a policy question and staff has had problems with applicants where they must put new siding on the home because it is in disrepair. The applicant will say "no", we will just invest in the back. Chair Allen referred to the Chabad project and improvements required to make the building look better. A year ago, the Planning Commission was unanimous about a project on Harrison Street where the same thing occurred where the Commission was unanimous in requiring the applicant upgrade the front building to get approval to expand the lot. Mr. Beaudin commented that the City will see more residential infill with legislation and increasing land costs. Chair Allen stated she would like to reconsider her prior input on this item. Commissioner Ritter questioned if the use of the word "required upgrade" was needed and suggested the word "encourage." Commissioner Brown said the other option if the concern is creating an undue burden on commercial, require new building standards, interior sprinklers, etc., would be to add the word "residential" to read, "upgrade of existing residential buildings and associated landscaping." Chair Allen asked to leave it more generic to state, `Upgrade existing buildings and landscaping as deemed by the Director of Community Development on the same property as residential infill projects." She also suggested adding something that indicates they should make the front look as attractive as the rear. Commissioner Brown said if Mr. Beaudin feels strongly about this from a staff perspective in order to coach people coming to the counter then he would recommend the word "residential" in there in order to exclude the commercial side which is the cost-prohibitive and burdensome side. Commissioner Ritter concurred. Planning Commission Minutes Page 22 of 27 June 26, 2019 e same property as far as new residential infill projects. Planning Commission Minutes Page 21 of 27 June 26, 2019 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