Laserfiche WebLink
A. We would expect that it would make the process easier by avoiding a Board of Adjustment <br />hearing. <br />Paul Wood - We have looked at a number of ordinances that have administrative approval of <br />variances. That is something that I would like to avoid. It makes it very difficult for the Staff <br />to make consistent decisions. It could almost become a blanket variance, with a 10% difference <br />in an administrative variance. <br />Q. Last month, was there not some discussion relative to architectural covenants in so called <br />historic districts, and things like that? <br />A. Yes, a Board of Adjustment member expressed his desire to have that included in the <br />variance criteria. Can be done more architecturally pleasing with a variance than it would <br />be if it were done in conformance with the requirements? I think the questions was directed <br />towards the criteria which the Board uses in granting a variance. That is something that <br />we made need to look at. It would require an ordinance change. <br />Chairperson Boulet - I agree with the earlier statement. That is a whole other issue that will take <br />a lot of work. Our Old Town area has such diverse architectural styles that establishing a standard <br />would be very difficult. <br />Paul Wood - Our goal, in terms of regulating building height, lot coverage and setbacks, would <br />be how you would address bulk next to property. I think that it would have a direct effect on <br />design without having to stipulate what the roof pitch would be, and other architectural features. <br />I do see some merit in creating a character district. I think our direction on this was to try to <br />reduce the number of people subject to the variance process. <br />Commissioner McAvinew - I just wanted to make sure that it is in the record as being addressed. <br />I think that the diversity that is in existence is somewhat regulatory. <br />Q. How would we handle a lot owner who owns a 25 foot wide lot, with a 3 foot setback, then <br />acquires the adjoining 50 foot lot, and what would be the setback on the 50 foot lot side? <br />A. I had, up to this point, not considered that possible scenario. <br />Chairperson Boulet - How about this - I think we can handle that by having limits on the overall <br />lot coverage, and treat that situation as one lot area. In that way, we could limit the overall size, <br />even though there would be a 3 foot setback on one side. <br />Commissioner Neal - Just some simple language saying once they have acquired the lots together, <br />then the setbacks for any newer walls would be applicable to the larger size (both lots combined). <br />Chairperson Boulet - I agree with the approaches that Staff has outlined here. I would like to see <br />this in a draft form. <br />5 <br />