Laserfiche WebLink
activity for the businesses. He favored infill projects in appropriate locations and <br />believed this project met that standard. <br /> <br />Robert Cordtz, 262 West Angela, noted that his wife had previously run a business <br />Downtown and that he had renovated several Downtown buildings. He supported <br />keeping the house on the corner because it would not change the streetscape. He <br />supported this project and was concerned about opposition to projects from people who <br />did not live in the neighborhood. He noted that such opposition could be costly to the <br />applicants as a result of delays. <br /> <br />Mr. Carey noted that they paid great attention to height and massing and noted that this <br />project was straight zoned for a 40-foot height without a PUD. He believed that housing <br />would be an appropriate use for this site and that home ownership would create integrity <br />and pride in the area. He described the approved adjacent Winters development and <br />noted that he supported compliance with the existing rules and guidelines. He noted that <br />they had no new-home tandem parking or carports and that all of their parking was <br />on-site. He noted that they would be able to save the tree and distributed the Arts and <br />Crafts paint color palette from Sherwin-Williams. <br /> <br />Mr. Huff wished to respond to the concerns about height and bulk, indicating that the <br />elevations were drawn straight-on; the viewer’s eye level was in the middle of the <br />building. He noted that people would not view the building from that height and that the <br />buildings appeared to be bulkier from that perspective. He noted that while traffic was a <br />concern for Downtown, it was a natural consequence of building infill projects. He noted <br />that with respect to concerns about a play area, there was a park nearby. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank expressed concern about the streetscape and noted that there was a <br />cookie-cutter feel to it because all three staircases were in the same position at the same <br />angle. Mr. Huff noted that there were changes of planes in the bulk of the house and that <br />there were different types of stair pickets that could be installed to vary the appearance. <br />He would be amenable to working with staff to attain that goal. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor would like to see a door installed in the garage area of Unit D <br />to provide direct access into the home. Mr. Huff noted that would be possible. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank moved to make the finding that the proposed PUD <br />development plan is covered by the previously approved Final Environmental <br />Impact Report for the Downtown Specific Plan and is consistent with the General <br />Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD Ordinance; to make <br />the PUD findings as listed in the staff report; and to recommend approval of <br />PUD-55 to the City Council, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B <br />of the staff report as recommended by staff, with the modifications that : (1) the <br />applicant work with staff to diversify the stairs/entryways of homes facing Peters <br />Avenue and to soften the streetscape along Peters Avenue through landscaping; <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 2007 Page 17 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />