Laserfiche WebLink
along with the setback variances, is to impose a building height on the portion of the building that <br />is within the reduced setback. That would prevent having a very tall building real close to the <br />property line. <br />Staff Presentation (Non -Conforming Structures): The idea was to allow reconstruction, with <br />historic setbacks, in the case of destruction. This would enable owners to rebuild a similar <br />structure in case of destruction. There may need to be some type of absolute minimum restriction. <br />There, also, may need to be a limitation on the type of destruction (i.e. fire or natural hazard). <br />The last issue, with regard to non -conforming structures is that within the Community Commercial <br />Zone District there are a number of existing single family residences. That is currently a <br />prohibited use. Through the PUD process it may be possible to identify areas that would allow <br />single family residential use within the Community Commercial Zone with a special review. This <br />is something that could be addressed on a block -by -block basis throughout the PUD. <br />P/C Questions to Staff <br />Q. Where did the idea come from for the floor area ratio? <br />A. More, typically, the concept is used for commercial rather than residential. It is still the <br />same basic bulk limitation. <br />Q. What about something relating to Architecture, or some type of design guidelines? <br />A. That is something that is not currently addressed by the zoning ordinance. That could be an <br />issue that you may want to look into. It would be something that would be extremely time <br />consuming. I did address that slightly with the exception of covered front porch idea. <br />Q. Would it be practical to perhaps address it through the issue of landscaping, particularly in <br />the front, as opposed to something related to the structure? <br />A. That would be a potential way to do so. <br />Q. Do we have any areas which are non -conforming with regard to fences? <br />A. I think there are, probably most typically on the alleys. <br />Q. Are we going to address that, particularly with regard to destruction and replacement of a <br />property? <br />A. That is a good point. That could be an overriding issue. There may be some flexibility with <br />the setbacks, but in no case shall there be an encroachment into the vision clearance area. <br />Q. If we apply a PUD overlay process, what would the home owner have to do that is different <br />from what they do now? <br />A. As part of the adoption process we would generate a list of all the property owners that are <br />within the area which is proposed for PUD. They would then have notification, by letter, <br />as well as an opportunity for input. Once the PUD were adopted, it would be the same as <br />anyone in a new subdivision that is subject to a PUD. When a building permit application <br />were received, it would be reviewed for conformance to the PUD. The permit could be <br />approved administratively, rather than have to go through the Board of Adjustment to get <br />some relief. One of the consequences of that would be, there would not be any prior <br />notification to adjacent properties owners. <br />Q. So the homeowner would not notice any difference, it might be easier to go to the Board of <br />Adj ustment? <br />4 <br />