06 - Laserfiche WebLink

During the meeting, the Bourgs spoke in opposition to the revisions stating that the proposal "violates" the Downtown Specific Plan and is a departure from the neighborhood character. Five additional residents stated similar concerns opposing the project. Three residents spoke in support of the proposal. After reviewing the materials and hearing public testimony, the Commission concluded that that the existing house at 205 Neal Street was not historically significant, as determined in the historical evaluation in Attachment 6, Exhibit H, and believed that the design of the home was appropriate for downtown. Commissioner Pentin and Commissioner Olsen felt that the applicant listened to the requests made by the Commission at the April 13, 2011 work session, revised the plans to address the massing concern, and stated their support of the proposal. Commissioner Pearce and Commissioner Narum stated that they liked the design, but still had concerns with the massing and could not support the proposal for that reason. Staff notes that Commissioner Blank was not in attendance and Commission O'Connor had to recuse himself from participating in this application due to proximity of real estate interests. Therefore, the Commission took no action on the application due to a tie vote. The item was continued to the next Commission meeting with full attendance, November 30, 2011. Staff has included the November 9, 2011 meeting minutes as Attachment 5 and the staff report in Attachment 6 for additional information and the Council's consideration. Additional Revisions Prior to the November 30, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant met with staff, Chair Narum, and Commissioner Pearce to discuss the proposal. The outcome of this meeting resulted in the applicant making additional plan revisions that included: 1. Reducing the square-footage of the second-floor study and relocating it from the front to the rear of the house. 2. Reducing the overall height of the proposed structure from 24 feet, 6 inches to 23 feet. 3. Reconfiguring the second-floor plan to not only accommodate the study, but a small storage area. 4. Eliminating the appearance of one solid wall along the west elevation by recessing the new storage area back from the first floor footprint and sloping the roof over the storage area to reduce its height. 5. Adding two windows on the west elevation of the storage room to further assist in breaking up the wall; however, the applicant is willing to eliminate the storage windows should they be considered undesirable. 6. Recessing the height of the master bedroom window on the west elevation to have a 6-foot-high window sill, and Page 4 of 7