PC 113011 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

would lose its non-conforming status and should meet current zoning laws. She also cited several sections in the DTDG referring to massing and scale as issues in historic neighborhoods, which was Mr. approval of this project at the last meeting. She concluded that the proposal is 1,700 square feet no matter how the parts are taken apart and put back together. Brian Bourg reiterated that they live 35 feet at the nearest point of the house and not 39 feet from the proposed project. He stated that he received a memo two days ago from Planning staff indicating that Mr. Huff had revised his plans and now the house, excluding the garage, was substantially smaller at 1,518 square feet. He indicated that this did not match his calculation of the house as over 1,700 square feet, which staff now states it is 1,710 square feet. He added that Mr. Huff now has submitted a revised figure of 1,680 square feet, which is more in line with the real size of the house. He expressed frustration that he could not get consistently accurate data. He noted that the new plan is exactly the same size as the last one; the rooms and windows have simply been rearranged, but it is basically the same size and still too big a house on too small a site. He added that the Planning Commission should be able to see that it does not fit within their historic neighborhood. Mr. Bourg then displayed a picture that shows the retaining wall, which defines the site where the house has to sit and which substantially limits the house and how much of the lot it covers. He noted that without the porch, the house covers 42 percent of the lot; with the porch, 47 percent or nearly half of lot. He added that the site has three variances because the house is too big for the site. He expressed disappointment that staff is now approving the plan because the applicant did not really make changes to the site; the project has a FAR of over 60 percent, which is much larger than 74 homes in the neighborhood, which were at 25% FAR. Charles Huff, project architect, stated that Mr. Cunningham and he tried to work with the Commissioners comments and have recessed back the second floor in certain areas. He noted that Mr. have not changed anything in square footage is inaccurate as they have taken quite a bit of square footage away from the front of the house and moved it to the back underneath the roof, basically not increasing the mass of the project. He referred to the graphic presented and explained it in terms of the footprint of the deck and the house along with everything else with it. He indicated that he believes they have come up with a high-quality project that follows the Downtown Design Guidelines, making many concessions in terms of what Mr. Cunningham wanted for a house. He added that it complements the two historic homes on the street and will be a good asset for the community. Mr. Cunningham stated that the windows Ms. Ayres referred to are skylights; and the windows on the loft are way down which will be almost impossible to look through; hence there would be no privacy issues. With respect to the windows on the other side that looks into the windows of the rental property, he noted that staff has indicated that the lot cannot be split in the future and, he confirmed that he would not split the lot and that the two homes will always be under the same ownership. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 30, 2011 Page 6 of 19