Planning Commission Minutes 2015 09 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2015 Page 17 of 21 Russ says, from precedent perspective, the City did waive the fee -in -lieu requirement for the Lulu's site. We gained four on -street spaces with its design, so City Council and Planning Commission recognized the value of on -street parking being provided as part of the site plan. Tengler says I will go along with the request to get rid of the third condition. It seems totally redundant. If this isn't a Downtown building, I don't what is. My sense is that it is unnecessary. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on the other one. It feels like there is a justification to say we have met the five parking space requirements by virtue of the curb cut going away. Moline asks if we have done a parking waiver in return for getting some sort of a benefit from a historic preservation perspective? Is there a precedent set there? McCartney says I remember some and Russ remembers some. Moline says I am not opposed to linking the waiver and the cash -in -lieu related to the waiver to the landmarking. I am not opposed to it and will still vote for it. Brauneis says I like Russell's thought of linking the two. What I don't know, however, in Staff's presentation is whether that was really intended. McCartney says Staff would be fine with a condition stating that you link it to the Iandmarking. The Arlen Lehman project on the corner of South and Main. We required the Iandmarking of Joe's Market. That project was never constructed, but that was a condition. O'Connell says I am okay with dropping the signage condition. The Iandmarking doesn't make any difference to me. Pritchard says I am in favor of this. I was surprised that HPC viewed this project especially with the back more contemporary or modern design. I understand the rationale behind it. I am supportive of dropping condition #3. Right now, they have a building sign attached to the building. In regard to the parking issue, I can go either way on this and letting them know that they have to finish the process one way or another. I am in favor of adding verbiage to add a replacement third condition. Motion made by Russell to approve Resolution No. 28, Series 2015: A resolution recommending approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the construction of a 2,982 square foot addition to the 1,292 square foot existing commercial building at 945 Front Street. 1. The applicant meet the resolve the comments in the Public Works memo date September 1, 2015 related to water demand calculations, South Street improvements, and storm water discharge. 2. The applicant meets the accessible parking requirements prior to City Council hearing. 3. The applicant shall successfully complete the Iandmarking process or make a payment -in -lieu if unsuccessful. Seconded by Tengler. Roll call vote. Name Vote Chris Pritchard Yes Jeff Moline Yes Steve Brauneis Yes Cary Tender Yes Ann O'Connell Yes Scott Russell Yes