PC 041311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pentin questioned the significance of a variance and inquired if three feet or two feet are really big variances or if a variance should not really be done for five inches. Mr. Dolan explained that the findings for variances are difficult to make, and they are based upon some certain limitations such as some special circumstance of the property which is not necessarily man-made. He stated that the lot for this proposed project is big, and the limitations of what is left over on one side of the property is a man-made condition. He noted that some people refer to this property as two lots, and the applicants are trying to place a medium-sized house on a very small lot, when in reality, the applicants are expanding a second home to be a medium-sized home on an existing lot that already has another medium-sized home. He added that what is being considered a tiny width is actually a wide width, and the current home makes what is left on the one side look pretty narrow. Commissioner Pentin referred to the letter from Peter MacDonald which talks of street-oriented design. He asked Mr. Dolan if that would put the house closer to the street with a porch in front, and if this is something that is not uncommon in the area. Mr. Dolan replied that there is a trend in PUD developments where houses are creeping up closer to the street to increase walkability, and porches are being created to promote interaction with pedestrians along the way and to engage the occupants with their neighborhood. Commission Pentin recalled that the idea of putting units closer to the street came up with respect to the Hacienda transit-oriented development discussions, except that it was closer than 23 feet. Mr. Dolan stated that it did, but this is in a different environment, in a much lower density neighborhood. The Commission then considered the questions on Exhibit A. Commissioner Pentin suggested that Question No. 2 be considered before Question No. 1. Commissioner Pearce suggested that Questions No. 2 and No. 7 be considered together. 2. Does the Planning Commission find the historic evaluation, prepared by the applicant, acceptable? 7. Does the Planning Commission find it appropriate to have the applicant fund proposed house would affect the historic character of the home located at 215 Neal Street? The expert would be someone who meets the qualifications PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, April 13, 2011 Page 11 of 19