01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan said there are a few other problems with the application and it disturbs him that he began on the Planning Commission in 1998 and on the Council in 2004, and the kinds of conclusions he has seen in the application are disturbing. A historical study done by a professional says there is no historic significance, yet a common citizen goes to the Museum on Main and finds all sorts of historical documentation about the family and house. The applicant produced a tree report where the arborist looked over the fence, looked at the tree and said that he did not believe there was a problem. The appellant paid for his own tree report which was very detailed and demonstrated that there could be a problem here. He asked why the applicant's tree report couldn't have identified those things or talk to the owner. Councilmember Sullivan said they have already discussed the 3 variances. He thinks there should be a 4'h variance. Regarding the conflicting calculations of the size of the house, no one seems to know what the actual square footage is. Granted, it does not matter whether there is 1300-1700 square feet, all of it is too big for the lot, but this is again something that concerns him in the way it has come forward. Also, a policy not discussed is that there are General Plan policies, the Housing Element where we encourage second units as a way of affordable housing and in downtown to maintain affordability. This is a de facto second unit in that location and fills that role perfectly, but they are talking about doing away with it. So, to him, this is the poster child as to why new guidelines should be put into place. He cannot support the project and before the Council sees any more of them, they need to get the guidelines and ordinance in place. Councilmember Thorne said he has met with both applicants; Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Huff, as well as the appellants, Mr. and Ms. Bourg. One of the most difficult issues they must deal with are projects that come to them with unresolved issues between neighbors and groups or neighbors and a builder. He thinks in this case, that difficulty is exacerbated quite a bit by the fact that there are people on both sides of this debate whose opinion he has a great deal of respect for. For him, he must look at 3 things when looking at an appeal of a Planning Commission decision. First, did the Planning Commission follow the right process. In this case, there were workshops, many public meetings, and some one-on- one meetings regarding both sides of the issue. He thinks that the proper process was followed. In many steps there were changes made in order to make sure that the Planning Commissioners were satisfied with the project. The next thing he looks at are technical aspects. After reviewing them, he cannot find any flaws in the way the Planning Commission made their decisions. Such aspects would be how the FAR was calculated. He thinks staff followed the rules in place for calculating the FAR. He said he did not believe variances in an older neighborhood are all that unusual. In fact, there are many situations and structures that would require a variance under the current rules. The third aspect is the whole issue of "in the best interest of" which is more in the purview of the City Council. He thinks in this case there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue and he cannot find that one argument is stronger than the other. So, in a case like this, he tends to go back to the rights of private property ownership and support the Planning Commission's decision and staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Cook-Kallio said it was interesting to see expressions on people's faces and acknowledged the emotion on the subject and the difficult situation. In speaking about the historical significance, she spoke with someone who likened historical to something 200 years old, but not everything old is worth saving and this is the balance to be considered. She understands property rights, people are not entitled to build just because they have gone to the City and Planning Commission, and the Council can look at projects and sometimes make what may be a subjective decision based on its understanding. It is clear that all Councilmembers are looking at the same ordinances, goals and policies and coming up with a slightly different way of looking at this. She thought the architecture looked great, she visited the site twice, met with the appellant and applicant, as well as Mr. Huff, reviewed the plans with staff and this is a very passionate decision because of all of the work involved. The bottom line is how to balance the project and how do we preserve the institutional memory of the City. This is non-conforming zoning which allows discretion for a reason. It is a very eclectic neighborhood, one cannot ignore the fact that there is a 3-4 foot difference in the height of one lot area and another, the calculation for the open space is disturbing because in reality, it is not really open space, and while she has agonized over this, City Council Minutes Page 20 of 26 February 7, 2012