My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 1995 04 25
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
1994-1999 Planning Commission
>
1995 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 1995 04 25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2021 12:32:36 PM
Creation date
7/15/2021 12:11:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Puryear - My guess is that is you that if you look at a solar access ordinance, <br />such as Boulders, it will make bulk plane look like a walk in the park. I am open for <br />suggestions. While I would like to look at solar access, I think it would be best done as a <br />separate issue. <br />Commissioner Boulet - I agree. Lets keep it as simple as we can. Although F.A.R. does not <br />perfectly address all the solar access situations that could arise, it is a limit which will in effect <br />indirectly result in solar access in most situations. After looking at all this that is the way I am <br />leaning. I think F.A.R. would be a simpler solution and it will accomplish most of what we <br />want even in the solar aspect. That plus height limits. And at the same time be flexible and <br />easy to administer. At this point I am wondering if anybody else on the Commission feels like <br />we are ready for public input as to these issues. I think if we advertise and get public <br />comment we can find a way to weigh all of these considerations. <br />Commissioner Solek - I understand the need to keep this simple. I have lived in some cities <br />where there are some situations which really result in some very ugly environments. I would <br />like to know if there are some other towns in this vicinity, or in the United States, that have <br />some simple ways of addressing this. It may be impossible to find a simple solution, but I <br />think it is worth considering. I do think it would be useful to get public input. <br />Commissioner VanNostrand - My sentiments are the same as Commissioner Lipton's. I would <br />say that F.A.R., I think, meets to the best extent the five major of objectives. I think we need <br />to allow for maximum design flexibility which the bulk plane would not allow. For preserving <br />solar access I think we need to stay with something that is very simple. I feel it is time to <br />bring this issue before the public. <br />Commissioner McAvinew - I think the solar access needs to be addressed in terms of criteria <br />rather than an absolute hard standard. We need to have something that is consistent, easy to <br />understand and easy to enforce. <br />Chairperson Boulet - Perhaps we could come up with several different scenarios for the <br />F.A.R. restrictions showing maximum allowable square footage for when we open the public <br />hearings. We need to let the public know that we are considering limits on the size and square <br />footage of any new construction in the Old Town area. That should generate some public <br />interest. <br />Commissioner McAvinew - We need to remember the issue of grandfathering that we had <br />discussed earlier. <br />Q. To Staff - What about timing? <br />A. Paul Wood - We know what our limits for March are going to be. I think in <br />March we need to package some of this for your direction. By the end of March <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.