06 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

agrees with the results of the historical survey. She stated that if they had proposed a smaller house on the site, given the City's current standards, it would be fine; but she has to support staff's recommendation based on the Policy 17 in the Downtown Specific Plan because she remains consistent in her concern about spacing between the houses and the size of the house in particular. Chair Narum stated that this is probably the toughest proposal she has had to consider and that she agonized over it. She indicated that the Commission asked the applicant to obtain a historical study which he did, and it is clear from the study that the cottage has no historical significance, so she would support demolishing it. She continued that she thinks the variances being requested are reasonable given what is going on in that neighborhood. She added that she appreciates the serious attempt to make changes to incorporate the Commission's feedback; however, in the end, she finds that the house is still too large, and she is not comfortable with the mass at the front. She stated that if it were up to her, she would ask the architect if there was something else that could be done to reconfigure the front a bit more to get the appearance from the street not quite so big. She indicate that it is really hard because she really believes that the applicant has made every effort to do what the Commission has asked him to do, but she is just not quite there and cannot support it as it is. Chair Narum noted that this is a 2-2 vote and asked Ms. Seto what the implications of that are. Ms. Seto explained that when the Commission faces a 2-2 vote, it is actually a "no action was taken" with regard to this application. She stated that in cases like this, the Commission could try a motion in favor or against, the Chair would note that it is a 2-2 vote, and staff would recommend that because there is one absence and one abstention due to a conflict of interest, the Commission consider a motion to continue the matter where a 5th Commissioner could be present. Chair Narum inquired if it was appropriate to re-open the public hearing to determine whether or not the applicant had a preference. Ms. Seto replied that this is up to the Commission's discretion whether to make a motion to continue the item or ask the applicant if he wants to continue the item. Commissioner Pearce inquired it this could be continued to a date certain as she would hate to draw this out much longer for the applicant and all parties concerned. She asked if this could be continued to the next Commission meeting on November 30, 2011, if necessary. Mr. Dolan replied that at the moment, there is a very large item that would take a long time that is scheduled on the November 30th agenda, but there are some issues with that project and may require some juggling. He noted, however, that this is not certain and the Commission can schedule the continuance for then and end up with quite an agenda. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Page 14 of 17