SR 05:258 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATfACHMENT 6 PUD-37. Ron Winter Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning and development plan approval for the construction of four single-family residences and two rental units at 520 St. John Street. Zoning for the property is RM-15 (Multiple-Family Residential) District and Core Area Overlay District. Ms. Decker summarized the staff report. She described the history and scope of the project and noted that there had been no changes to the project by the applicant. No changes were made to the staff report previously distributed to the Commission. She noted that there was adequate parking in the project, and a snapshot of the site development standards for the units was included on page 5 of the staff report. Staff determined that the project meets the siting, mass, and height requirements ofthe Specific Plan as well as those of the design guidelines with respect to roofline, materials, windows, entries, and architectural detailing. In addition, the landscaping adequately softened the two-story architectural elements on the site. She displayed the floor plan of the units on the overhead screen. Ms. Decker advised that staff believes the PUD findings were made regarding whether the plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare; consistency with the City's General Plan; compatibility with previously developed properties in the vicinity and the natural topographic features of the site; whether the grading takes environmental characteristics ofthe site into account and is designed in keeping with best engineering practices to avoid erosion, slides or flooding, to have a minimal effect on the environment; whether the streets and buildings have been designed and located to complement the natural terrain and landscape; whether there are adequate public safety measures incorporated into the plan's design; and whether the plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD district. Ms. Decker noted that there were two primary issues of contention with respect to this particular development: parking and removal of the trees on the site. She added that nine trees would be removed. She noted that the arborist's report was included in the packet and discussed the details of that report. She noted that there had been a great deal of community interest regarding the removal of the walnut tree; the Planning Director has discretion with respect to the removal of that tree and the mitigations. In this case, staff believed that the project met the goals of the Downtown Specific Plan with a nearly 2: I replacement ratio; therefore, the walnut tree itself was mitigated under those circumstances. Ms. Decker noted that the residents also perceived a loss of parking in the Downtown area. Staff requested that a parking survey be done, which was displayed for review. The Code did not provide for tandem parking, per se, but a PUD application allowed the City Council, the Planning Commission, and staff to assess a project and analyze whether or not a particular proposal was appropriate and whether adequate on-site parking was available to the projected residents. Staff found that although the project would include tandem parking, three spaces would be provided per site, meeting those criteria. When commercial properties come before the City in the Downtown Specific Plan Area, in-lieu parking fees may be requested; the applicant has agreed to pay in-lieu parking fees in the amount of $28,000 for this project. Ms. Decker wished to correct the date of the neighborhood meeting stated in the staff report from December 7, 2005 to 2004. Many of the comments reflect previous versions of the plan; the front setback has since been stepped back to break up the front fa.,:ade. The number of units was EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 11,2005 Page I of5