Laserfiche WebLink
Q. <br />A. <br />the bulk plane will allow more total building potential than the F.A.R. that was <br />suggested. Quiet frankly I think the F.A.R. that we have suggest is more of a feel <br />good number, not necessarily based on a tremendous amount of research. I think <br />legitimately we need to get some feed back from the public on how workable those <br />numbers may be. <br />Could you adopted a bulk plane as it references to the height and the configuration <br />of bulk at the top and leave the F.A.R. as a maximum? <br />That would depend on what your objectives are. That could be an additional thing, <br />to have an overall limit. Certainly a combination could be used to do that. <br />Commissioner Puryear - I think this depends on what our goal is. It would seem to me that if <br />you overlay a bulk plane onto an F.A.R. restriction then what you get is a little more molding. <br />That being your building will not exceed this many square feet and it will fit inside this box. <br />It seems to me that you would limit some diversity. The trade off would be solar access and <br />the perception of smaller side yards. This as an overlay does not have a lot of appeal to me <br />because I think I would rather give people a little more leeway. Not for shear bulk, because <br />that is restricted by F.A.R., but a little more leeway as to what to do with the site and how to <br />do it. <br />Commissioner Boulet - I agree. When I saw that the bulk plane would rule out the application <br />for 1237 Lincoln I thought there was something wrong with the concept, or a least those <br />limits. This would appear that it is restricting freedom as opposed to giving it. Maybe what <br />you will end up with is more uniformity. My two thoughts on this when I saw this were, one <br />maybe the bulk plane is not such a great idea, maybe it restricts the architecture more than <br />what we want, and two, maybe we should look more carefully at just the F.A.R. limits that we <br />are looking at. I would like to concentrate my efforts on looking toward what the right limits <br />are for the F.A.R. concept. In order to meet the bulk plane you almost have to have further <br />setbacks, which we are trying to relax in Old Town. <br />Q. Is this house (1237 Lincoln) at the maximum proposed F.A.R.? <br />A. Yes it is very close, possibly slightly less. <br />Chairperson Boulet - I was looking at some numbers and I was thinking that if you allow <br />expanded lot coverage to 2188 on that size of lot, subtracting for a garage you are looking at <br />about a 4,000 square foot house. That would be to large and to bulky. So how about if what <br />ever the lot coverage is you take 140% to 150% for the F.A.R. In doing that the F.A.R. went <br />counter to the lot coverage. In other words we are allowing larger lot coverage for the small <br />lots, but maybe we should have a smaller F.A.R. for the smaller lots. <br />Peter Kernkamp - Under the current zoning you could potentially get a 5,000 square foot <br />house on that lot. <br />8 <br />