Laserfiche WebLink
Page 7 of 9 <br />are missing or inconsistently shown within the submitted plans. <br /> <br />Finally, the project does not fully comply with utility, service, and infrastructure standards, <br />including stormwater management, sewer lateral design, and utility enclosure placement and <br />refuse area placement, as discussed in the Background section above. Overall, staff identifies <br />widespread nonconformance with ODS requirements across site design, architecture, <br />circulation, landscaping, and infrastructure elements. <br /> <br />Other Topics <br />Other topics relevant to the project, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, and <br />Climate Action Plan consistency, are discussed in more detail in the May 27, 2026 Planning <br />Commission agenda report. <br /> <br />Planned Unit Development Considerations <br />PMC Section 18.68.110 sets forth the purposes of the PUD District and considerations to be <br />addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan. These are set forth in the draft Resolution <br />(Attachment 1) and include whether the plan is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, is <br />in the best interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, and whether the plan would <br />be compatible with developed properties in the vicinity. Based on the information and analysis <br />provided in this agenda report, staff recommends the City Council deny the application for <br />Rezoning, and a PUD Development Plan filed as Case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152. <br /> <br />Certificate of Appropriateness <br />PMC Section 18.74 sets forth the purposes and considerations to be addressed in reviewing <br />for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of a primary structure within the <br />Downtown Revitalization District. These are set forth in the draft Resolution (Attachment 1) <br />and include a review of whether the plan conforms to applicable policies and standards. <br />Based on the information and analysis provided in this agenda report, staff recommends the <br />City Council deny the requested Certificate of Appropriateness because the proposed future <br />use and design of the property would be inconsistent with the applicable guidelines and <br />standards discussed above, and as a result, do not support demolition and replacement of the <br />existing office building. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br />The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 27, 2026, to review the proposed <br />project and provide a recommendation to the City Council. In addition to the applicant, two <br />members of the public spoke. Two speakers—an adjacent neighbor to the north and a local <br />resident on Augustine Street—expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns about the <br />number of requested deviations from applicable standards and policies; the characterization of <br />the project as a single-unit residence rather than a multifamily or mixed-use development, <br />future use of the building following ownership changes, and potential impacts on parking, <br />privacy, sunlight, and property values. <br /> <br />After listening to public testimony and discussing the project, the Commission voted 3-1 to <br />adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-14 (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council deny <br />the applications for Rezoning, a Certificate of Appropriateness, and a PUD Development Plan <br />filed as Case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152. <br /> <br /> <br />Page 243 of 373