Laserfiche WebLink
use of their properties. What I am saying is, that it reaches some sort of critical mass where it <br />will impact the neighbors I think it is unfair to count it against the F.A.R. <br />Chairperson Boulet - Two years ago when Boulder was discussing impact and proposing a F.A.R. <br />restriction in the down town area I think the resolution they reached was that garages were counted <br />at half. I don't know how they addressed other accessory structures. I do believe they were going <br />to count decks as well and I am not sure how they resolved that. <br />Peter Kernkamp - With regard to decks, they way we count it is that the magic number is 30 <br />inches above the ground. That is used because at that height you have to provide a railing around <br />the deck. So anything lower than that does not count towards lot coverage. As long as it is an <br />uncovered deck it does not count towards lot coverage and does not need to meet setbacks. With <br />regard to garages if you were only to count 50% you would want to have an upper limit. <br />Commissioner Puryear - Would you want to exempt a portion of the garages, given the building <br />envelope, they get severe pretty quick. With the exception of the 25 foot lots which have such <br />a small width they won't be building a large garage any way. What you would be doing is taking <br />the maximum lot coverage and adding just a bit more. <br />Commissioner VanNostrand - My intent was the other way. Garages would count towards the <br />F.A.R. but we could exempt other kind of structures. <br />Q. <br />A. <br />You talked about limiting front garage access, I wonder if we couldn't require that the <br />garage would still have to be setback from the main structure, forcing the Hollywood <br />Drive? <br />I think that is a real good point. Especially since we are relaxing the front yard <br />setback. Another issue is to have room to park a car in the drive way. <br />Commissioner Puryear - I liked the suggestion that the front yard setback be measured to the <br />nearest point of the principle structure and further define that to be 40% of the lot width. That <br />would give a little more flexibility for people who wanted a stoop in front of the front door which <br />would not be counted as the building envelope. <br />Q. <br />A. <br />On your bulk plane work sheet, you said you were going to indicate, or recommend, <br />a choice between the 40, 35 and 30 percent ranges that did not show up as <br />highlighted. <br />No. That was on another diagram. The 30% lot coverage corresponds to the Current <br />RR zoning requirement, the 35 percent is the RM zone and the 40% is the suggested <br />PUD standard for a 25 foot lot coverage. As you can see as we get into the larger lots <br />the 40% drops off. <br />Does staff have a preference as to which one is being recommended? <br />We just worked out those numbers. If you look at the chart figure 1 has the suggested <br />lot coverage by lot size. <br />