_Minutes_August 12, 2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

problem. He also stated some of the three-story homes within the Irby Ranch development were taller than the proposed project's three-story building. He also did not notice any loss of views. He expressed his support of the third story, stating the massing fit in the business park. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner O'Connor. He expressed satisfaction with the one-story buildings padding the homes within the Irby Ranch development from the proposed project's three-story building and with how the applicant worked with staff to tone down the coloring and painting and to increase articulation. He stated, although the building was adjacent to downtown, it was still appropriate for its zoning. Commissioner Balch also agreed with Commissioner O'Connor, stating the massing and scale were appropriate, and he expressed support for the three-story building. Commissioner Allen stated she was in alignment with the other commissioners and felt the building was appropriate for the area. She indicated the building would not set a precedent for Downtown residential, as it was in an area zoned commercial. She expressed concern regarding the Nevada Street side of the building and preferred it look more like the front of the building and less like the back of a warehouse. Regarding the side facing Stanley Boulevard, she expressed her preference for a color other than orange on the upper stories. Chair Ritter stated the applicant was providing value to the City by cleaning up the existing junkyard appearance, and its proximity to Downtown was very convenient for the public. He also expressed satisfaction with the massing and pop-in-pop-out feature. Discussion Point #2: Amenities and Mitigations 3. Are the amenities and mitigations provided acceptable to support the proposed FAR or are additional amenities and mitigations required? Commissioner Pace expressed surprise at the cost of the stretch of trail but was in support with the applicant was willing to pay. Commissioner O'Connor discussed the proposed amenities and found the proposal acceptable. Commissioner Brown expressed concern with the dissention within the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Committee as indicated by letters submitted but indicated he preferred to focus on amenities that were adjacent to projects rather than putting money in a general fund for other use. Commissioner Balch stated the City could benefit from the trail and he found the amenities acceptable. Commissioner Allen stated she would like validation from the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Committee before moving forward with the proposed section of trail as the letters from the senior members of the team concerned her. She also stated she would like to see a greater dollar amount provided by the applicant for use towards the project, for the 25 percent increase in density which translated to a little under $2 million in revenue; in looking at the cost of the trail over the next 30 years, it was a $10,000 per year amenity where the City was getting less Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 August 12, 2020 had visited the property to look at the different angles and did not see a Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 August 12, 2020 were no current funding alternatives. She explained that the Trails Master Plan had just been completed and they had assumed it would be years before that section could be completed because, even though it was ranked as the number one priority from the community, it was expensive and complicated. She further explained the City relied heavily on private developers in that section of town for completion of the trail. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 August 12, 2020 �• } * yo- r e 7 X �S:`, yqJ '_ i ti+ "x',. y �3 f � 4, t Iv 7. .. .��, ERI;I L ;; ,,�• L`D .13LRNAL ., / Ee ('�11� n 1 .e. 7r `� t, - wan 2 t� ti► 't 6 y ;.4.'"...'-is f 1' '* uw (� 7 J1r 1:6,580 o 0.075 0.'5 mi P20-0568, 218 RAY ST, NAG U I BMftelISISM Planning Division 0 i 0 4110 820 Feet l August 17,2ozo ['L-EA AN foN.