SR 05:258 - Laserfiche WebLink

has a 1.7: I ratio and is incapable of supporting more trees than the 16 that have been proposed. Ms. Decker restated staff's recommendation for the project in an infilllot within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. She recommended that the Commission find the PUD development plan to be consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD ordinance; find that the Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Specific Plan anticipated that a high-density residential project would be located on the site, and, therefore, no other environmental documentation is required; make the PUD findings as presented in the staff report; and recommend to the City Council approval of the project for rezoning and development plan approval, subject to the conditions of the staff report as modified by the Commission's conditions on May 11, 2005, and the peer review recommendations. Commissioner Pearce indicated that she had read the May II, 2005 staff report and minutes for this application and would be able to participate in the discussion and vote on the project. Commissioner Roberts inquired why Mr. Winter included photos of houses on Birdland. Ms. Decker replied that the photos graphically show that in that area, there are two-story residences that are approximately the same distance apart as those proposed here. In response to Commissioner Blank's comment that the peer review did not address the "cookie-cutter" appearance of the roofline, Ms. Decker replied that Mr. Cannon believed the appearance of the roof looked fine and in character with the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Blank's inquiry about whether there was a color board and how colors were determined, Ms. Decker replied that during the design review process, staff works with the applicant to look at what colors would work well with the design. She indicated that these colors were presented to the Commission at the May II, 2005 meeting, and no request be made that they be brought back. She added that it would be within the Commission's purview to discuss the colors at this time ifit so desired. Commissioner Roberts indicated that she had requested that the streetscape be considered by the peer reviewer, comparing these houses next to the Oxsen residence, and this was not addressed in the review. Ms. Decker apologized for the misunderstanding that this request was not communicated to Mr. Cannon. She noted that Mr. Cannon had included a photo of the Oxsen house on page I of his report; however, staff did not request a photo montage ofthe streetscape. Acting Chairperson Arkin stated that the reason for the streetscape was for the Commission to see the massing difference between the project and the Oxsen house. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2005 Page 24 of31