08 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Ayres that she was at the last meeting but did not speak, and watching the process, she was surprised that the architect was allowed to speak a second time. She noted that it appeared those who have more power and prestige and money are given preferential treatment and suggested that the Commission make decisions based on the facts and the law and ordinances in place rather than on who is friends with whom. Christine Bourg stated that she would like to present a few remarks highlighting the reasons why she is asking the Commission to deny the application. She noted that her house is 35 feet from the proposed structure and not 39 feet as stated several times by the applicant and the architect. She displayed a picture of the story poles taken from her kitchen window, stating that a similar photograph could be taken from three other points in their house which look down at the project. She indicated that her art studio, which is not a garage or shed and which she considers part of her compound and buildings on her lot, and where she spends a lot of time, is only 7.5 feet from the proposed structure. She added that the shade study requested by the Commission at the April 13th meeting, which she understood was to be completed by a professional, was done by Mr. Cunningham who is not a professional. With respect to "remodel" versus "demolition," Ms. Bourg stated that all the documents from Mr. Huff regarding the proposal from 2009 to the present refer to this proposal as a "remodel" based on saving one small wall, while staff has considered it a "demolition" or a "take-down" in all of its reports. She noted that the Downtown Design Guidelines (DTDG) states on page 10 that "Remodeling retains the essential floor area, roof, and walls of the existing structure while making changes to the interior and/or exterior." She pointed out that a "remodel" is not turning a 480-square-foot cottage into a 1,700-square-foot house, leaving no visible sign of the old dwelling. She added that the only reason it is before the Planning Commission is because it is a non-conforming lot; but if the cottage is demolished and replaced with new construction, the new structure would lose its non-conforming status and should meet current zoning laws. She also cited several sections in the DTDG referring to massing and scale as issues in historic neighborhoods, which was Mr. Dolan's reason for not recommending approval of this project at the last meeting. She concluded that the proposal is 1,700 square feet no matter how the parts are taken apart and put back together. Brian Bourg reiterated that they live 35 feet at the nearest point of the house and not 39 feet from the proposed project. He stated that he received a memo two days ago from Planning staff indicating that Mr. Huff had revised his plans and now the house, excluding the garage, was substantially smaller at 1,518 square feet. He indicated that this did not match his calculation of the house as over 1,700 square feet, which staff now states it is 1,710 square feet. He added that Mr. Huff now has submitted a revised figure of 1,680 square feet, which is more in line with the real size of the house. He expressed frustration that he could not get consistently accurate data. He noted that the new plan is exactly the same size as the last one; the rooms and windows have simply been rearranged, but it is basically the same size and still too big a house on too small a site. He added that the Planning Commission should be able to see that it does not fit within their historic neighborhood. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 30, 2011 Page 3 of 6