PC 091411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Huff stated that he thinks the Downtown Design Guidelines, at the time they were set up, were meant to be more concerned with the buildings on the south side of the street, which was the original housing subdivision in 1924. He commented that the way the sentence appears today might have been a blanket statement about the Spring Street neighborhood. He noted that there are also a few of these structures on the north side of the street, although the remaining homes on the north side were built many years after the original subdivision of 1924. He indicated that the larger question he has is the architectural value of the remaining structures, other the historic structures on the south side of the street, on the south/southeast side of the street, which are the little Mexican markets and various commercial structures which are part of the same neighborhood, although they were also built a lot later than the buildings across the street. He noted that one question he would raise with respect to this sentence is its intent in this regard. Mr. Huff stated that architecturally, he has tried to incorporate in this project a lot of the historic elements shown in the structures across the street, including the new front porch which has stucco columns rather than wood column and stone, and the hip roofs e flat roofs and on porches that have hip roofs. He added that even though this house was not part of the original subdivision, he has tried to give some respect to the homes across the street and some of the elements. He stated that while he is not saying he does not Craftsman home, this house really is not a true Craftsman home or it would look totally different from the way it looks now. He indicated that it is a home with elements that try to incorporate that original home the best they can into the homes across the street, and this is also the reason for disregarding the comment to change the front porches. With respect to the house on 249 Spring Street, Mr. Huff stated that this is also another project of his. He indicated that the owner is currently out of the area and that he will try and contact him. He added that he believes this owner will also be in favor of the proposed project. Mike Carey, Downtown property owner, stated that he supports the remodel as the surrounding neighbors on Spring and Ray Streets do and noted that everyone would like to see this site invested in and brought to life by a new family. He indicated that he believes the home improvement, as proposed, is a remodel addition and not a demolition and recommends that the Commission approve the setback of three feet as originally proposed by the applicant because they followed the guidelines of the existing code without any variances. For purposes of clarification and a better understanding of the area, Mr. Carey noted that the small adobe houses across the street on 204, 216, 228, 240, 252, and 264 Spring Street have a zero sideyard setback pretty much from end to end, using the zoning applied in the Central Commercial District, with a shared driveway between the houses and the property line actually running down the center of the driveway. He noted that some of the houses also have roof eaves that hang over the property lines. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 14, 2011 Page 23 of 28