PC 032311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank generally agreed with Commissioner Pentin's comments. He stated that he also has questions about massing; hence, he would like to have good visual representation, including a shade study and colored photo montages seen from all the views. He noted that he has had a long- standing position on the Commission regarding denying three -story homes which are actually shorter in height than two -story homes in areas where only two -story homes are allowed, which does not make sense because the reason houses have been limited to two stories is to have less massing. He indicated that he thinks a three -story building should be permitted if it can be done in the same manner as a two -story building with appropriate mass, accurate shade study, and good visual simulations. He noted that the proposed building is well within the realm of possibility but that he would need more data. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Blank, stating that her primary concern is massing as it relates to the rear neighbors. She agreed that the building need not be pedestrian in scale, and that while she has some concerns with the view from Spring Street, her sense is that because the building is so far back, it will not be a major issue. She stated that she drove around the area and noted that down Ray Street, the story poles look large; she did not want the building to loom over the rear neighbors, whether they be renters or owners. She indicated that she loves what Mr. Kearns has done with the current building and knows the right thing will be done here as everyone has the best interest of this area at heart; however, in order to understand the project better, she would like to see very detailed visuals and streetscapes primarily from Ray Street but also from both Spring Street and Main Street. Chair Narum agreed with the Commissioners' comments. She expressed concern about the view from Ray Street, stating that as she drove down Ray Street and parked her car by the sidewalk, she could see the story poles, which felt imposing. She reiterated her earlier suggestion about the feasibility of parking on the east side and being able to bring the building more forward towards Spring Street to get it off more from the property line in the rear and reduce the mass from Ray Street. She indicated that she believes three stories can work but would like to discuss the design. 3. Is the building design appropriate for the subject site? Commissioner Olson stated that he and his wife walk Spring Street a lot and had watched the front building's renovation. He noted that early on, they had doubts because the building was deplorable, but Mr. Kearns did a terrific job. He stated that the reason he asked about the Pilates studio was because it is not in keeping with the architecture on Spring Street. He added that it is also difficult to notice it while walking Spring Street, and he believes putting the proposed structure farther back on the property mitigates the concern that the architecture might not be similar to what is right on Spring Street. He indicated that he would like to see the massing and agrees that the Commission might want to visit whether or not rear setback should be expanded. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2011 Page 10 of 21