Planning Commission Minutes 2016 06 23

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 6 of 30 Public Comment: None. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff believes this complies with the regulations and warrants a waiver given the hardship due to the unusual depth and location of the house and public good of compatibility with the Comp Plan. Staff recommends approval. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Hsu says I don't think we have the authority to approve this modification based on the clear language of the statute. There have been no exceptional topographical conditions or other condition peculiar to the site identified. The house is not part of the site. I looked up site in the dictionary and the site does not include the building. We have not identified any topographical conditions or other conditions such as a river, hill, or cliff that requires the 42.5' and 57.5' division. I don't think we or the City Council has the authority to grant any modifications. I appreciate the applicant coming here. We are constrained by the statute. Rice says this would be a no-brainer if we were talking about 50'. That would make it really simple. What makes it different is trying to back down from the 50'. We are talking about 7.5' which, considering other lots not necessarily on this block but in that area of town, isn't really a huge difference from what we see elsewhere. I think Commissioner Hsu's point is well taken, but I think other conditions can be read a little more broadly. "Other conditions" is intentionally meant to be a catch-all and it allows us to look at things a little more broadly than simply the first clause which is topographical. My thought is that the ordinance does provide us with the flexibility we need to make this decision. It is on the border in terms of size. I am inclined to improve it given what I think is a good faith commentary of the applicant with regard to what their plans are for this site. Tengler says I agree with Commissioner Rice's interpretation of this. I am also comfortable with Scott's interpretation and response to the letter we entered into the record. I am in favor. Moline says I agree with Commissioner Rice and Commissioner Tengler. I would like to see if Staff can provide a comment back on Commissioner Hsu's concern. What he is saying sounds pretty serious. I am curious on how Staff would view that comment. Zuccaro says that it is a little bit broader and that is how we saw it and how we came up with our recommendation on the additional circumstances other than the topography. I think historically this is how we have interpreted the code and applied the codes. It is up to interpretation of the PC, but consistent with Staff's previous interpretation that you look at it more broadly. Moline says based on that, I am leaning towards support. Pritchard says I agree with my Commission members in everything that has been said. I do believe the ordinance and the code gives us enough flexibility for interpretation on issues like this. I look back to what the Comp Plan is talking about, and how they want these houses to be well balanced. The smaller scale works for the Old Town Overlay. Where I have a problem is if the applicant decides to come back and tear down the entire existing house and build a large home. They are entitled to do this. A large house lessens the Downtown. Moving forward, Staff's recommendations are consistent with what we have interpreted over the last few years. I think this is beneficial to the community. I think the size will be adequate and it will fit in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. I understand Commissioner Hsu's concerns. I am comfortable with Staff's findings. Hsu says this goes to one of my favorite subjects which is statutory interpretation. It says, "other conditions peculiar to the site." I understand everyone is interpreting "other conditions" to be anything we want. The dictionary definition of "site" is the land, not a building. The building cannot be a condition of the site. That would lead to some absurd result. I am uncomfortable with an interpretation of the statute that basically brings in the building as part of the site.