PC 022603 - Laserfiche WebLink

From a design point of view, the Downtown Specific Plan classifies the Spring Street area as a heritage neigl-iborhood, in recognition of several similarly-designed older homes- Staff believes that the proposed design closely reflected the characteristics of the existing heritage neighborhood in terms of the details that maintain the neighborhood character- StafF believed that the biggest issue with this project dealt with the issue of demolition versus rehabilitation. 'The Specific Plan has policies that strongly encourage preserving acid rehabilitating those buildings to the maximum extent feasible, unless they were unsafe and it was not feasible to rehabilitate the buildings. Staff conveyed this information to potential applicants who seek reuse of the buildings- Staff worked very closely with the applicant and his consultants to make a determination with respect to demolition versus rehabilitation- While the building is not currently a hazard, the Building Official has indicated extensive damage to the building, including extensive foundation damage that would require a new foundation, dry rot in the walls, and a good chance of termite damage based on the condition of similar buildings on Spring Street- He noted that it was typical to find Further damage in a house of this vintage. Staff developed a guideline to determine whether demolition would be recommended to the Planning Commission, which is the "50% rule" Staff asked the applicant, consultants, contractors, and engineers to develop an estimate of the costs to restore and rehabilitate the house as a house, not considering what would be required to change it to an office or commercial use. If the cost to rehabilitate exceeds 50% of the value, staff considers it to be infeasible to rehabilitate the building- Staff supports demolition of the existing building since it would cost more than SO% of the building's value to rehabilitate it, and believed that the new proposed plans were well- designed in terms of maintaining the character of the existing home and being compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Iserson noted that parking was an issue in the neighborhood, and that the City Council has established a de_facto parking policy in the area based on its actions on other homes on Spring Street. One policy stated that structures that are in poor condition, and which are proposed to be rebuilt, would be considered "remodels" for purposes of parking if the new structure would be similar to the original. These buildings are treated as residential structures even if they were used as offices, and would get residential parking credit. In this case, the owner would get credit for parking as if it were a residential parking situation. The applicant proposed adding 360 square feet to the building, and would be required to provide only three parking spaces: two for the existing house, and one for the addition. The applicant proposed four spaces, which exceeded the requirement- Mr_ Iserson advised that the applicant would be required to get access easements from the neighboring properties because of the shared driveways to gain access to the parking area- Staff received letters from the neighbors, stating that they would be willing to provide those easements- __.. ___. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2003 Page 5