13 - Laserfiche WebLink

that you guys were open if we blended it into Residence 1 being a flex space, it could be left out of it. I understand we're up for the studio discussion of six, four, two, whatever, right? Chair Ritter: You did research on that house and I saw a termite report? Carey: Yes, so on that, the City did an historic analysis by the ARG Group. They paid a little over $70,000 to study 201 homes. Of the 201, 88 came back to be criterion three historic designated. So that's like 42% to 43% of what they studied. So there are a ton of them that don't meet it. They're old, they have some significance to us, and a lot of history with the Zaro family. My mom passed away last year. I wrote an offer on the property 17 years ago in a probate sale estate. We lost it to the owner who bought it for $210,000 and then I got a chance to buy it back 17 years later, two years after my mom passed away and I jumped on it. So we bought it and it's got some significance for me. I understand. We're using the bricks. I don't know if Tom knows that. We're keeping the bricks and using the bricks. I talked to his daughter. We'd like to stamp something in. I think it was the Zaro Brick Company. I mean that's not a consolation prize for him I'm sure, but we want to work with the site, keep all the historic stuff on it, and I lost my train of thought. You asked me what...? Oh, they spent $70,000 on 201 homes and when I asked staff for this study they said commercial's exempt. So I ordered my own. I did a bunch of research. I interviewed the guy that worked for ARG for years and then started his own company. He did the study. It cost me $4,800 and my study's like 30 pages. The City's study is like three pages for every site and $70,000 breaks down to like $350 per house. I spent $4,800 on my study. We researched the Sanborn maps, the museum; it's a very thorough report. It's old but it doesn't technically have historic significance and it's been changed and modified and I won't get into it, but we really studied it and started to work with it at one point. We were trying to make it work, and the termite report, the structural engineer and the contractors I had said it's on dirt. I mean, the piers, we crawled it; it's just not safe to today's standards. It will just crumble if we move it or took it apart and it's just not feasible to work in the project. I've done three projects and we've kept the old house every time. Chair Ritter: Okay, thanks. Commissioner Balch: So the FAR at 60% as the speaker talked about, I think it does say in the staff report that it was 58%. I think we've talked about that and that appears to be an office overlay element that was an allowed use. 12 spots; we're going to talk about the parking I'm sure later, but I think staff mentioned they count possibly 10 and then Commissioner Allen asked earlier, 1.5 per we already discussed. 30-foot building also already discussed. Story poles—not requested in this instance because of the office overlay, correct? Am I correct on that? Weinstein: That's right. We routinely require them for solely residential projects. We didn't require them this time for this project because it was a mixed use project. It could be required in advance of the City Council meeting. The applicant did provide some imagery that shows what the project will look like from different perspectives so we felt like that was sufficient without having story poles. EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 9 of 21