PC 091411 - Laserfiche WebLink

proposal would need to mirror what is currently there because that part of the Guidelines is not being amended. Commissioner Pearce advised that she and Chair Narum met with the applicants, who informed them that this was originally scheduled to be a remodel, but staff felt that the side yard setback proposed of three feet needed to be increased to five feet, necessitating what is now considered a demolition. She pointed out that she did not see any discussion of that in the staff report and she asked Ms. Rondash to comment on it. Ms. Rondash replied that in the original plans, staff did not fully discuss if this was considered to be a remodel or a demolition; however, the applicant was proposing it as a remodel. She added that initially, the concerns of the scope of work were always there, but staff never fully vetted all the questions because it could not get past the design the applicants were proposing initially. She noted that the plans had gone through several revisions. Commissioner Pearce inquired why staff specifically wanted the side yard setback increased from three to five feet. She noted that the staff report indicated this is a zero lot line property where the house can go almost directly to the fence line. Ms. Rondash replied that this was the pattern in the neighborhood; other buildings have a setback and were not built up to the lot line. She stated that staff believed a greater setback of five feet setback would be more appropriate to keep the residential feel that the applicants were going for. Commissioner Pearce prefaced her comment by stating that if the project is approved, she is loath to amending the Downtown Specific Plan although she is open to discussion. She inquired if, given the regulations surrounding a project like this, the Commission is able to determine that this is a remodel and, therefore, does not necessitate a Specific Plan Amendment. Ms. Harryman replied that she discussed this topic of demolition versus remodel extensively with staff at the last Staff Review Board meeting where this application was considered, and a Building Division staff indicated that demolition is not something actually defined in the Building Code. She noted that the concept behind the language prohibiting the demolition of primary buildings in the Ray Street/Spring Street neighborhood is historic preservation. She explained that if so much of the building is being taking away such that nothing historic is left or what is seen in a historic home is not there, then it is a demolition at a lower standard; the building does not have to be taken down 100 percent for it to be called a demolition. She noted that in this case, there is so little remaining of the existing structure that the character will not look like the same house, and, therefore, for this section, it is a demolition. Commissioner Blank inquired if the Commission has the flexibility to bifurcate and approve the application as an exception to the Specific Plan, and then send notice to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 14, 2011 Page 16 of 28