CCMIN060308 - Laserfiche WebLink

be saved, and this was the reason to send it back to the Planning Commission, as they review houses of this type. Councilmember Cook-Kallio agreed, was pleased that the fence is being left where it is as it is nobody's fault, but she was not sure she would do anything different than PUD 61; to move it down from 30 to 28 feet is insignificant, especially if plans will return to the Planning Commission, and she supported a 35% FAR. Mayor Hosterman asked for staff to ensure the tree will continue to be a healthy one and neighbors will be able to take advantage of solar applications in the future. Vice Mayor Thorne said one of the things that struck him is the height of the homes on each side of the property and he confirmed with Ms. Decker that they are 25-28 feet in height. It is hard to imagine how the height will fit into the neighborhood, acknowledged the homes outside of the immediate area are taller and have a more lenient zone district. But without a project to look at, it is hard for him to imagine what this will look like and said his tendency is to be more restrictive on the project. Councilmember Cook-Kallio confirmed the recommendation by staff is for a height at the ridge, whereas the height of straight zone on Second Street is measured at the mid-point of the roof. So many homes allowed at 30 feet could actually be higher at 33 or 34 feet in height. Vice Mayor Thorne said he would agree with Councilmember Cook-Kallio's recommendation on reducing the height, and regarding process, he supported review by staff as long as there is an opportunity to return if appealed. Councilmember Sullivan said he was supportive of what the applicant is trying to do, thinks the height and density is consistent and similar to everything else in the area, he voiced concern about the front of the house because it is a historic resource, agrees the home needs a facelift, but not a complete renovation which would destroy the historic aspect of the home. He said a 14-foot height is limiting, supported the lot split, supported a compromised 28-foot height and 35% FAR, and he wanted something incorporated into conditions that will strive to restore versus replace the front house and that the applicant will work with City staff to accomplish this. He supported the City taking the easement for the bulb-out which is attractive, serves as a traffic calming feature and should be kept in place, and if ever removed, he wanted this to return for review by the Zoning Administrator. Since there is controversy on the matter with neighbors and historic aspect of the house, he supported the project returning to the Planning Commission which would provide safeguards for the historic house. Mayor Hosterman agreed with Councilmember Sullivan's comments, said the property owner has weighed in on his issues, and she supported Items A-E, except for it returning to the Planning Commission. She discussed this with the Downtown Economic Committee last week, acknowledged the City is trying to streamline the permitting process and supported an in-house process versus sending it to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Sullivan said often when there is controversy on a project, staff sends projects to the Planning Commission because it goes there anyway. He met with the Downtown Association one month ago, they are interested in streamlining the process, and he is also except when it is at the expense of citizens who have concerns. Councilmember McGovern said the house is historical and she believes having it go through the Planning Commission is a good thing. The same Planning Commission will most likely not City Council Minutes 11 June 3, 2008