CCMIN010290 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application. Mr. Terry O'Connor, 979 Rose Avenue, stated that a report dated June 1988 indicated that the project is appropriate for the site and would not have any adverse aesthetic impact. He presented some graphics on the modifications and changes that were made, based on the recommendations of the staff and Design Review Board. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Mercer stated that his original concern when the project was first presented to Council was the precedent of a three-story building. After meeting with the staff and the architect, the three stories did not bother him as much since the ground floor would really be the parking area and the building would in effect be two stories. He commended the Design Review Board for making the building more attractive and indicated that he would support the project. Mr. Brandes expressed some concern about the intensity of the development, particularly the massiveness of the proposed apartment building on the site. He stated that there are other types of lots in the downtown area that a similar type of action could be taken on and that the project should be considered in the light of the Downtown Specific Plan. He added that the staff gives a viable alternative for the project that would make it fit in with studies done in the downtown area. He indicated that he favored denying the application, without prejudice, so that the applicant could work with the staff on a scaled-down model which would make it look more appealing. Mr. Butler commented that this is a difficult case because the project had been through design review and was made to come back. In the meantime, a new design review process was instituted, and the Design Review Board (DRB) found some problems with the plan. He noted that the applicant has worked hard with the staff, accepted their recommendations and tried to meet every objection. He stated that the massiveness of the project may present a problem. He indicated that he had great confidence in the DRB and supported its decision; however, he was unable to put down in concrete terms what the problem might be. He suggested that a different approach to the project may be the answer to the problem and concurred with Mr. Brandes' suggestion to deny the application without prejudice. Mr. Tarver stated that he was present for the design review the first time it was approved. He indicated that he would like to see the DRB's concerns satisfied; at the same time, he recognizes that the applicant has gone through a tremendous amount of changes, and that there have been instances in the past that the Council has approved appeals when the rules were changed in the process. He expressed concern about the applicant's having -6- 1-2-90