06 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce agreed with the statement but indicated that she cannot rely on it as she has no facts to support the statement. She expressed appreciation for everyone's assessment; however, she prefers to have more information. Commissioner Olson countered that the statements were made by someone who has built homes, a contractor who has done a lot of remodeling and construction work in this town. Chair Narum commented that if the contractor's statement is to be relied upon, then there is no need to have the historic evaluation done. She noted that the expert may come back with additional information that indicates there were significant events that occurred at this cottage to make it a contributing resource. Commissioner Olson replied that in that case, it would be different, but what exists on the property right now does not add a lot of value to the neighborhood. Commissioner Pentin agreed that with information the Commission has tonight, he cannot say yes, but he cannot say no either because there is not sufficient information. He noted that this is a workshop, and based on what has been presented and the information at hand, he can say yes. 2. Would it be appropriate to reduce the setbacks and separation requirements for the subject site? Commissioner Pentin stated that he hopes Mr. Huff can work out the variance issues with the City at the time the project comes back as an application. He indicated that he does not have enough information at this time and it is a matter of what the applicant will bring back to show that evidence and findings can be made for the variances for setbacks and separation requirements. Commissioners Pearce and Olson agreed. Chair Narum stated that potentially, she would rather see a variance, particularly on the front yard setback. She suggested that if the cottage was torn down and remodeled, there would be more space on the first floor, thereby decreasing the impact on the second floor. She indicated that she would support a variance that would allow the house to come closer to the street if it would achieve this. Commissioner Pearce agreed with this point. She stated that massing and separation/setback issues should be discussed and recommended that a shadow study be done. She indicated support for the balcony and porch in the front and would be supportive of moving the house forward if the impact on the second story could be reduced. Chair Narum indicated that this is similar to what was done on Spring Street regarding granting a parking variance in order to move the structure off of the back property line. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIL 13, 2011 Page 12 of 15