PC 110911 - Laserfiche WebLink

however, with how it sits, he is not as concerned with the massing. Referring to the historical review that was requested and professionally done, he commented that the Commission can consider all day what should and should not be retained; however, a professional review was asked for which returned a finding that the house is not historic. He questioned at what point the Commission should say that it holds the applicant to it and that he cannot demolish or remodel. He stated that he supports the project as is. Commissioner Olson stated that he was delighted to see the staff report with the one exception that staff referred to the lot that will contain in quotes. He indicated that his view on that is the reason it is in quotes is because it is really not a lot. He noted that there is one lot, and the FAR on the one lot with the new project is below the FAR at 4512 Second Street. He indicated that at the Workshop, he expressed concern with the massing, and the architect has returned with a redesigned project with less massing. He stated that he agrees with Commissioner Pentin on this point. He indicated that he thinks the problem the Cunninghams are having here is that they are trying to do a project in a neighborhood that has demonstrated a hostile view of projects, just as what occurred with the Harvey project at Third Street and Neal Street, which he sat through. He commented that he thinks it is unfortunate that some people in the community cannot view differences in the neighborhood. He indicated that he thinks this project is acceptable and that he would vote in support of it. Commissioner Pearce started with her usual comment that neighborhood disputes are always the hardest thing that the Commission does, and it is never a situation where it can make everybody happy. She stated that she thinks it is a lovely house, and she has tried to be consistent in conveying that to the Cunninghams, both formally at the Workshop and informally when she met with them on site. She indicated that she also agrees with the results of the historical survey. She stated that if they had proposed a smaller house on the site, ; but she 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 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 9, 2011 Page 24 of 29