PC 011404 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ _, Although staff encouraged public parking lots, this was not considered to be a good candidate for one because of the neighborhood issues. Mr. Iserson noted that a great deal of public outreach was done by the applicant and staff, and almost all of the neighbors supported the project. The site is considered to be a sensitive site, and staff believed that the applicant has done a good job. Use of the parking lot would require further discussion because the applicant would prefer not to leave the lot open to the public; the neighbors opposed that idea. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution that the City Council: a. Make a finding that the project would have a de minimus impact on wildlife; b. Approve the drafr Negative Declaration; c. Approve Case PSP-5 for an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit D; d. Find that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and purposes of the PUD ordinance; e. Approve the rezoning of 325 Ray Street from R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) to PUD-O (Planned Unit Development-Office) as shown in Exhibit E; and, £ Approve Case PUD-30, subject to the conditions in Exhibit B. Staff recommended that Condition 10 be modified to add more detail on the window treatment. Condition 86 would be added with respect to changes to the Arroyo. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the building color appeared to be yellow rather than beige. He also questioned the wall and handicap ramp. Mr. Iserson advised that the color charts were at the bottom of the elevation and that the difference in color was due to inaccurate color reproduction by the photocopier. Mr. Iserson stated that the other issues would be addressed by the applicant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Tom Siewert, Valley Park Associates, complimented Mr. Iserson in his summary of the project. He noted that they were not the original applicant from the prior years' proposal and that they had met with the neighbors several tunes. He appreciated the level of detail provided by staff and the neighbors. Commissioner Fox believed that the second story looked larger than its original depiction, and she noted that some neighbors were surprised when they saw that diagram. Mr. Siewert noted that the scales were different and that the renderings had been changed during the design process. He noted that the building had increased only two feet in height. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2004 Page 14 of 22