PC 072215 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Nagler stated that he does not have anything to add to what has already been mentioned. He indicated that the Commissioner's direction to ask for more work to be done is appropriate. He added that it struck him, as he was going through this, that Building 1 begs the question of how set the Commission is on the requirement of maintaining the street view as compared to maintaining the neighbor's view. He noted that it is a trade -off and that he is fine with it if it requires more deliberation. Commissioner Balch commented that it would be interesting to know if the Commission is willing to possibly sacrifice a parking spot to preserve a view. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he would not have a problem with that. He noted that there are a lot of Downtown properties that have two- and three - bedroom homes with one -car garages. He stated that as far as maintaining the street views, the Commission is talking about the possibility of a second story and finding no change in the street view. He added that the street view changes by putting a second story directly behind the home as it is only five feet behind the home. Commissioner Balch commented if the street view is going to be lost anyway, it might be well to lose it a lot and get what is needed to please more people. Commissioner Nagler commented that if the Commission is agreeable that the number of total units proposed is acceptable, that is, four units with two bedrooms each, extending the existing building and remaining a one -story building by definition would make parking pretty difficult because there is only so much of a footprint that is extended to the rear. He indicated that he is not sure if it is even the Commission's place to suggest this, but clearly the problem would be solved if the existing home were torn down and a front unit were built that replicated Building 2; Building 1 would become a mirror image of what is being proposed as Building 2, and four two- bedroom units each with a total of six parking stalls would be maintained. He reiterated that he is obviously not proposing that the Commission adopt this, but again, if this item is going to be continued. then this is an idea to be considered. Commissioner O'Connor inquired, for verification purposes, if the proposal is for the front house to have two bedrooms, the first building to have one bedroom, and the two buildings in the back to have two bedrooms each, for a total of seven bedrooms. He noted that the existing home currently has three bedrooms, and if the first building behind was eliminated and the building in the back remained with four more bedrooms, there would still be seven bedrooms, even with the elimination of a building, and there would still be the separate unit. Commissioner Nagler noted that this would be the architect's task, and because there could be a variety of issues, he believes the item should probably be continued. Commissioner O'Connor agreed that he does not want the Commission to be designing this but that he would like the applicant to further explore what to do to maintain the view. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 22, 2015 Page 10 of 15