PC 111319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Allen asked staff to go through the Second Street case that occurred to test that against what the Commission is trying to accomplish tonight. Mr. Dolan explained the circumstances by which the historic structure on Second Street had been demolished, noting that the applicant did not go through the proper channels or process to demolish the dilapidated structure beyond what was approved for demolition. Staff found there was no recourse in the current code. Commissioner Balch inquired and confirmed the applicant is building exactly what was approved which had existed with new front walls but that looks the same. He then asked whether the rear alteration was approved for reconstruction. Mr. Dolan responded that the rear addition had been permitted to be constructed and cannot be seen, but he noted that this house was one of the more modest historic homes in downtown. Commissioner Balch asked if, under similar circumstances in the future, the applicants would still be approved to construct the rear addition. Ms. Clark responded they would need approval through applying for design review; and make the case to be allowed to construct the originally planned addition, but the City would not have to approve that request. Commissioner Balch asked and confirmed that by destroying the front without permission they would forfeit their right to the permit for the back rear addition. He commented that he could see both arguments where the City initially approved it but at the same time the underlying elements are no longer present and the whole project should be reconsidered. Commissioner Brown referenced the letter received by Linda Garbarino and asked if there were any other instances similar to the home on Second Street relating to the front façade problems and the home on Third Street where a large multi-story home was constructed in its place. Ms. Clark responded none have been brought to the City's knowledge or determined to be a violation of the ordinance. Regarding the Third Street example noted by Ms. Garbarino, her understanding was that this was legally constructed under the City's process, but it was before the City had its Design Guidelines in place — as a result the home built was felt to be out of character. Commissioner Brown asked and confirmed that the Third Street house did not yet fall under the Design Review Guidelines. Chair Allen commented that even if it is one case, the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to avoid this situation from reoccurring by adopting an ordinance that is punitive and that deters bad behavior. Commissioner Brown commented that his position is that if the potential benefit to somebody is greater in their mind than paying the fine or doing it without permission; he thinks it is Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 November 13, 2019 ember 13, 2019 er than six feet but not over eight feet in height may occupy a required site or rear yard" and he stated the screen wall is 20 feet high; (2) "All additions to main structure which exceed 10 feet in height shall be Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 November 13, 2019