PC 051105 - Laserfiche WebLink

5_ MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION a_ PUD-37_ Ron Winter Application For Planned Unit Development (PUD rezoning and dcvcloprrxent plan approval for the construction of four single-family residences axrd two rental units at 520 St. Tohn Strcct_ 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 oi- the staff report. Stattf~ determined that the project meets the siting, mass, and height requirements of the Specit3c Plan as well as those of the design guidelines with respect to root7ine, materials, windows, entries, acid 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 envirox~xiiental characteristics of the 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 arbori st'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 Plarxning 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 Specie-ic Plan with a nearly 2: 1 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. Statf~requcsted that a parking survey be done, which was displayed for revicw_ The Code did not provide for tandem parking, per se, but a YUD 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MIND"I'ES May 7 1, 2005 Page 3 of 16