PC 110911 - Laserfiche WebLink

stated that in this case, the proposal is so overbuilt and close to the lot lines that it will never look like it was original or like it belongs. She noted that when a house is overbuilt, it falls out of the visual connection with the surrounding structures. Ms. Donahue-Carey expressed concern that there has been discussion over the years about redevelopment of properties behind her, and when she looks at the image and reckons how this would affect privacy for the home on Second Street and the value of all the homes in the areas. She stated that everybody can agree that it is a ; however, they must be very circumspect on its impact on the neighborhood, the unique quality, the privacy, and the home values of the immediate neighborhood. Becky Duret stated that she will not speak as her comments have been reflected by previous speakers. Jon Harvey, Downtown resident, had a question of staff for clarification regarding the variance that involves the calculation of the depth of the property, as the depth of the property never changed. He then asked the Commission to imagine being in the shoes of the Cunninghams: have a dream; find a property in the Downtown and convince your spouse that it is a good idea; buy the property; think about how to renovate the property as you move into your empty nester years; hire a legitimate historical architect who has been awarded the job for renovating the John Steinbeck house where he wrote many of his books; meet with neighbors to review the plans, including those who you know are predisposed to the project and who you do not know will later form a campaign against your project; go through the design process which can be frustrating in and of itself; deal with structural engineers and work back and forth in your own mind; meet with staff and incorporate their recommendations; go to a Planning Commission Workshop and incorporate many new recommendations; and then find yourself at this meeting where suddenly your project is dead in the water because it is being looked at under a different set of rules, in this case, a logical lot split versus being two homes on a single lot. He noted that had the owners known at the Workshop that the metric was going to be FAR, based on what the visual lot size is, they may have taken a different direction. He indicated that he thinks the process has run its course, that variances are incidental and do not drive the design of the house, that it will have to have tandem parking. He urged the Commission to consider this application from the Cunninghams perspective and from a process perspective, and move the project forward. Mr. Cunningham stated that in responding to the statements made about variances, he is not asking for anything different than what is currently on the lot now or what is currently in the neighborhood; and to him, this is not a variance. With regard to FAR, the size, and all the other regulations, he indicates that he is compliant, that it is not two separate lots, even if it looks that way. Regarding the statement that the majority is in opposition, he stated that he has 66 letters of support from the neighbors, and it is the PHA that is objecting. He stated that he walked up and down the street and many people are happy to see something done. He noted that Ms. Krichbaum commented that 215 Neal Street has tandem parking, but it does not, as there are two spaces, one PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 9, 2011 Page 22 of 29