PC 071013 - Laserfiche WebLink

not in good condition, some that have been hacked and pruned are asymmetrical and not in balance. She concluded that, all in all, there will be a lot more greenery and a lot more healthy vegetation than what is there now. Ms. Hardy then addressed the question of the pedestrian walkway, noting that they had previously shown it on the plan; however, the Planning Commission, back in November, had indicated that there really was not a great deal of support for that, and as they did not have support for it either, they eliminated it from the site plan. She noted that they recently learned from staff that there was a change of course and that the walkway was added in a response to the Climate Action Plan (CAP); but they remain opposed to the walkway. She indicated that she did take a look at it, and with all respect to staff, she thinks the connectivity portion of the CAP is really intended to provide pedestrians and bicyclists connections in more conventional subdivisions where really the intersections and blocks are a lot bigger, an average, per the CAP plan, of nine intersections per square mile, which is double that in the Downtown area. Ms. Hardy continued that she wanted to address the "why" of the pedestrian issue. She noted that Ponderosa is conditioned to build a sidewalk on Stanley Boulevard on the site's frontage to the west to connect to the existing sidewalk located one lot over from the site, and that lot does not have anything. She indicated that they still remain opposed to the pedestrian walkway because, first, they think it is not necessary; and second, they think it presents a safety and security element for their buyers. She added that should the Planning Commission disagree with them on that, they would at the least say that it should be gated and should be limited to the exclusive use of only the residents and not be a public use connection. Commissioner Ritter thanked Ms. Hardy for showing him the property. He asked her to reiterate what she told him regarding the analysis of moving the house or retrofitting the house, what challenges that presents, and what could happen with that existing house. Ms. Hardy replied that they had Ward Hill perform his analysis of the project in addition to a cultural analysis. She indicated that there was some discussion about picking up the house and moving it forward, or what would it take to make the house stable. She noted that two teams of specialists in moving and restoration of historic or older homes came out and did an exhaustive review, looking at the structural integrity of the building, the foundation, termites, mold, water damage, and a whole host of elements; they also looked at code upgrade requirements. She indicated that the cost of picking up the house and moving it is just cost - prohibitive, and the degree of which the improvements to the house would need to be made to bring it up to basic safety and code is also very great. She added that it is a relatively small house, about 1,900 square feet: one room at the entrance, the bedrooms off to the side, with an add -on old bathroom, kitchen, and the porch circa 1950, and an illegal unit upstairs. She noted that anybody today who would want to live in that house today would probably want to gut the entirety of the house; the floor plan is just not conducive to today's lifestyle, the floor of the back half of the house is lurching and is about ready to fall off; they would probably want to do an addition in addition to remodeling the house. She further noted that all told, it would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 10, 2013 Page 13 of 21