14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. Page Two 2. Appropriate relationship of the proposed building to its site, including transition with the streetscape, public view of the buildings, and scale of the buildings within its site and adjoining buildings; 3. Appropriate relationship of the proposed building and its site to adjoining areas, including compatibility of architectural styles, harmony in adjoining buildings, attractive landscape transitions, and consistency with neighborhood character; 4. Preservation of views enjoyed by residents, workers within the city, and passersby through the community; 5. Landscaping designed to enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas, provide shade, and conform to established streetscape; 6. Relationship of exterior lighting to its surroundings and to the building and adjoining landscape; 7. Architectural style, as a function of its quality of design and relationship to its surroundings; the relationship of building components to one another/the building's colors and materials; and the design attention given to mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings. 8. Integration of signs as part of the architectural concept; and 9. Architectural concept of miscellaneous structures, street furniture, public art in relationship to the site and landscape. The proposed infill development conforms to the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) including the density, height, and proposed use. The neighboring properties includes a mixture of uses including residential and commercial (e.g., offices, hair salon, chiropractor, tailor, yoga, etc.) and adding an infill residential unit to a site with an existing office, complements the neighboring mixed uses. However, the project as proposed would not provide all of its required parking on-site, and approval of an in -lieu parking agreement would be necessary to meet the requirements of the PMC. The Council considered the parking on-site and determined that the proposed parking configuration as represented in the site plan is inappropriate for the site and neighboring uses. The Council did not support the approval of an in -lieu agreement for the project as the necessity to provide all parking on-site is critical at this location. Therefore, the project would be short one parking space and does not meet the requirements of PMC Chapter 18.88 with respect to off-street parking facilities. The Council determined that the parking deficiency on site, if approved, may cause issues and parking conflicts with neighboring uses including overflow parking on the street or on adjacent sites. The City received testimony that neighboring residential streets already experience overflow parking on their street and this will exacerbate the issue. On this basis, the project cannot be supported.