Laserfiche WebLink
She indicated that she was contacted by neighbors to the rear and requested the <br />website where they can review the plans. <br />Commissioner Piper inquired if all three options are on the website. <br />Ms. Hagen replied that all three options were attached to the staff report on the City's <br />website. <br />Commissioner Ritter inquired if the story poles are in Option 1. <br />Ms. Hagen replied that they are only for Option 1 and Option 2. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired why the notice card would not indicated that the plans <br />are available for review on the website. <br />Ms. Hagen replied that the website address is included on the notice card, as well; the <br />notice states that the staff report will be available on the City's website, and it gives the <br />website link. <br />Commissioner Nagler stated that sometimes the challenge of the question does not <br />have much to do with the size or scope or mass of the project. He indicated that what <br />makes this interesting is that one of the elements of the Downtown Specific Plan is an <br />intent to preserve existing views, although the other elements of the Downtown Specific <br />Plan call for maintenance of a certain kind of architecture, maintenance of street views, <br />and an attempt to not substantially alter the look of the Downtown area by virtue of new <br />buildings. He added that it seems to him that there is no perfect answer, and it is a <br />question of relativity amongst the things the Commission is being asked to consider as <br />far as the Downtown Plan. <br />Commissioner Nagler stated that it would be to the neighbor to have that view line <br />obstructed: the view that is available is limited, it will always be limited, and it has the <br />potential over time to become more obscured. He indicated that if that is the case, then <br />the Commission also ought to have at least as much care about the architecture and the <br />massing of the buildings and the maintenance of the look of the neighborhood. He <br />stated that he actually thinks that a three -story building would be a tough thing for that <br />neighborhood to aesthetically swallow. He noted that he does not have a vote tonight, <br />but if he did, he would be supporting Option 1 on balance. <br />Chair Allen stated that this is a tough one for her as well and that she feels somewhat <br />the same way as Commissioner Nagler when she came in. She indicated that it is a <br />balancing act between preserving the view versus the Downtown guidelines in a small, <br />tight neighborhood. She noted that she is also thinking about precedent- setting <br />because there will be more buildings in this neighborhood, and she is concerned about <br />creating a three -story building as well as a building that has three units versus two just <br />because the guidelines are trying to go toward creating a neighborhood that is more <br />consistent architecturally and that limits the massing. She stated that for that reason, <br />she is not excited about Option 3 because the architecture is not as consistent and is <br />more massing; and Option 2 does not totally help the view and does not protect the <br />neighbors' views as they would like it to be: the view is somewhat limited today and will <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 9, 2015 Page 10 of 17 <br />