Laserfiche WebLink
would try to keep it fairly simple, that is going to limit the worst abuses. What I see <br />as relevant, is the community ethic that evolves. <br />Q. Is that the maximum foot print width that is shown on the diagrams? <br />A. Yes. Basically, this width is going from setback line to setback line. On the narrow <br />lots you are almost forced to do that. On the wider lots you are more likely to get <br />some variation. <br />Q. There are some references in the minutes from October 24th to solar access, which <br />of these two approaches would best address that and how could that be incorporated? <br />A. With regard to that issue, the bulk plane would definitely address that issue to a much <br />greater extend. As you get closer to the property the less height that is allowed. <br />Q. If you were to go with a simpler method would there be ways to incorporate some sort <br />of consideration for that? <br />A. There are several ways to describe it. You might be able to describe the bulk plane <br />in terms of the maximum height as this, and then for each foot you are setback you <br />are allowed one more foot of height. That might be easier to comprehend for some <br />people. In terms of solar access, there is a two fold concern. Not only the height but <br />how that is in relationship to direction. <br />Q. Is there some sort of a fire lane that needs to be considered on some of the smaller <br />lots? <br />A. That is a minimum distance from the building code. Certainly, if you talked to fire <br />fighters they would probably want more, particularly as you go higher. Relaxing that <br />side yard on those narrow lots is more of necessity to allow reasonable use of the <br />property rather than that is the ideal situation. That is one of the reasons that early <br />on we chose an approach of looking at having different standards for different sized <br />lots. <br />Q. Is the 25 foot lot. in the minority? <br />A. Yes. Where there is only a 25 foot wide lot in single ownership is about 7%. <br />Another 7% would fall in the 26 to 49 foot range with most being the 35 and half. <br />So that would be about 15 % of the study area. Whereas the most common is the 50 <br />foot lot. Over 70 feet is about a third. I don't know how much brain damage we <br />want to go through for something that is only 15 % of the lots. <br />Public Comments and Input_ Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson Avenue, Louisville. First of all I <br />would like to say I think staff has done a great job putting together all of this data and getting it <br />down to something comprehensible. The setback for the garage in relation to the opposite side <br />of the alley right of way is a very elegant solution. With note 2A, I would like to see some more <br />exceptions like open porch, steps, balconies, covered walks, those type of things. I think the <br />general idea is that it is something open on three sides. I like the front yard maximum setback. <br />I would propose to amend note 3 to say to the building facade, I would go on further to say that <br />it should be 40% of the lot width. That way it is not just a porch or covered stair sticking out just <br />to meet that minimum. The side yards and rear yards look good. The three foot side yard would <br />seem reasonable as well. I still like the zero foot side yard because it is so predominate in Old <br />Town and is the existing character. The reasons for not doing it that way is maintenance and <br />6 <br />