Laserfiche WebLink
A. There is a provision in the code that prevents sell-off of the property to become less than the <br />70 foot standard. This means that you cannot take something that is conforming and make <br />it non -conforming, or make something that is non -conforming less conforming. In terms <br />of assemblage, I did not give that much thought. What I would envision is that the PUD <br />standards would apply to the total assemblage that is in single ownership. <br />Q. Is the entire outline intended to apply to existing housing when there is expansion or a <br />request for variance, or is it intended to apply only to new construction? <br />A. That would be one of the points to clarify. Should a different standard by applied to a <br />scape-off type situation verses adding onto an existing structure. Certainly, the majority of <br />the variance requests have been for existing structures. <br />Chairperson Boulet - I think this is a good approach. We need something that will prevent Old <br />Town from being filled with huge houses that take advantage of the maximum limits. We could <br />do that by controlling the lot coverage and the building height. If we do that right this should not <br />present a threat to any neighborhood. I don't want to see a situation where someone builds <br />something in accordance with what we draft, and the next door neighbors are enraged because <br />they will live in the shadow of it. <br />Paul Wood - I think there is an intent in this PUD to provide less relief through the PUD on more <br />standard area lots. The focus of the PUD would be to address the non -conforming lot areas less <br />than 7,000 square feet. <br />Staff Presentation/Commissions Questions (Front Yard Setbacks): Currently the zoning <br />ordinance has a provision allowing for the averaging of adjacent setbacks. For instance, if you <br />had a lot on either side, one setback 10 feet, and one setback at 15 feet, you could average the <br />setback at 12.5 foot. You may want to expand that somewhat, and look at the entire block, verses <br />the houses that are immediately adjacent. Another possibility is to look at whether or not a <br />reduction from the existing 25 foot setback would be warranted in the Old Town area. That could <br />even go into detail to the extent of naming setback limits for each specific street within the PUD. <br />Q. Does the street right-of-way in Old Town usually encompass the sidewalk? <br />A. Yes, typically the sidewalk is within the street right-of-way. <br />Another element to consider would be to allow a reduction for covered front porches. With the <br />current zoning a covered porch is not allowed as an encroachment into the required front yard <br />setback. <br />Staff Presentation (Rear Yard Setbacks): This would appear to be, primarily, an issue for <br />accessory structures. Most of the lots in Old Town are of sufficient depth that the rear yard <br />setback, with regard to the principle structure, is not much of a problem. Where there is a <br />problem is with accessory structure setbacks, where there are currently a lot of structure very close <br />to the alleys. The current zoning allows for a 10 foot setback for accessory structures. This may <br />need to be addressed, especially in terms of the Old Town area. Most of the existing structures <br />2 <br />