PC 091411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Carey stated that the applicants have worked closely with City staff for almost two years and have been accommodating to all City requests such as the historical study, meetings, and public input. He noted that it has been a very time-consuming, expensive, and emotional process for them, and he asked the Commission to approve the project as a proposed remodel tonight so this family can start living in the Downtown. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Blank stated that he likes the project and is inclined to proceed with it. He asked staff if the Commission can find this project to be a remodel and not a demolition, and leave the project just as it is; and if so, he asked what language would be used to move the project forward. Mr. Dolan staff does not have a good definition of demolition and used the 50-percent rule, which he finds to be very conservative and is no longer a good definition but which has been used in the past. He added, however, that he thinks the one-stick-standing rule is also ridiculous. Mr. Dolan noted that it is obvious there needs to be a dialogue on this as a community, and he is certain it will be one of the things that will need to be resolved when the Downtown Specific Plan, and specifically the historical regulations, is revisited. He added that this is one of the Council Priorities, and there is a commitment to do it as soon as staff resources become available. With regard to postponing that decision until then, Mr. Dolan stated that this may be a unique situation enough for the Commission to do it that way, and it certainly is one way to do it. He added that the other way, which staff decided on and which is a little bit more cautious, is to do the Specific Plan approach. He indicated that one of the advantages of this approach is that if another similar application comes up in the neighborhood, it will not be necessary to make yet another exception or have the same dialogue all over again. requested staff to display the slide showing the red walls that would remain and inquired if these would be the only walls remaining if the Commission grants the three-foot setback as opposed to five feet, or if there would be additional walls remaining. Ms. Rondash replied that these were the existing walls along the front façade that would remain regardless of which setbacks were applied. She explained that allowing the applicants to reduce the setback would simply add more new wall. inquired if there would be any impact on the other end of the front façade. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 14, 2011 Page 24 of 28