Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Dolan replied that it is necessary to try and scope the study so the issues can be <br /> identified and, theoretically, be addressed, whether it is the scope or how far up on the <br /> site it sits, which is worth talking about. <br /> Commissioner Pearce inquired whether the concept to be explored is less about the <br /> character of the development of the new home and more about what kind of impact a <br /> new home would have on the existing home and the integrity of the property as an <br /> whole entire historic resource. <br /> Mr. Dolan said that was correct and that this was included under Question No. 7. <br /> 1. Would the Planning Commission support the demolition of the house at <br /> 205 Neal Street? <br /> Commissioner Olson stated that he would support demolition. <br /> Commissioner Pentin stated that he would also support demolition because he has not <br /> heard any opposition to the actual demolition of the house and given the type and <br /> quality of the structure. He indicated that outside of the size and mass of the proposed <br /> house, it seems to him that the applicant is doing everything he can to build the house <br /> that fits the neighborhood and the homes that exist there. He concluded that he does <br /> not have so much of a problem with the demolition as with what is going in place of it. <br /> Chair Narum stated that one reason the Commission wants a historic evaluation is to <br /> find out whether the building is a contributing resource. She noted that if the expert <br /> returns and indicates that the house is a contributing resource, she will have a tough <br /> time with its demolition; however, if the expert says it is not a contributing resource, she <br /> would no problem with its demolition. <br /> Commissioner Pentin stated that based on the presentations that have been made, he <br /> has heard no one say that the house has value and should not be demolished. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that she would much prefer to see this house be retained <br /> and expanded in an architecturally and historically appropriate way. She indicated that <br /> she does not think she has enough information at this time to ascertain whether or not <br /> demolition is appropriate based on a historic evaluation or a structural integrity <br /> evaluation. She stated, however, that if she were asked if she preferred demolition or <br /> some kind of add-on, she would generally opt for an addition, if possible, as she always <br /> prefers to keep the existing structure in an older neighborhood if it has integrity and can <br /> be fit in within the grand scheme. <br /> Commissioner Pentin noted that the Commission also heard comments that they do not <br /> want to have the front of the cottage remain the same with a big box at the back. <br /> Commissioner Olson added that a contractor indicated it would need to be close to <br /> being torn down to improve on it, and that sounds like a demolition. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIL 13, 2011 Page 11 of 15 <br />