Laserfiche WebLink
foot setback to garage doors facing the alley has been eliminated. That would seem not to <br />be the established standard in the Old Town area and was rather excessive. With regard to <br />the issue of being able to rebuild an existing non -conforming structure that may be destroyed <br />by natural hazard, I have an initial proposal of the language that would address that. <br />Included in your packets is a letter received from Peter Stewart commenting on the proposed <br />draft, along with several suggestions. Included in that are some helpful graphics. I think • <br />that there are some issues raised that need some discussion and perhaps some direction. <br />P/C Questions to Staff-- <br />Q. Is the addition brought tonight to be item #5, page 2? <br />A. Yes. <br />Q. On page four, second column from the right, third line up, that total area is the only one <br />which exceeds the F.A.R., could you expand on that? <br />A. The maximum F.A.R. is what is being proposed. The total area is the addition of the garage <br />area, first floor and second floor area, using a maximum build out. Some of those <br />numbers slightly exceed the F.A.R. <br />Public Comment/Input: Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson Avenue, Louisville. The reason for my <br />letter to the Planning Commission is that I was concerned that some of the zoning changes might <br />not yield the desired results. On of my biggest concerns is that a lot of the zoning in place now <br />sets up minimum setbacks, which may encourage people to site a home in the middle of a property <br />without regard to the front line setback of existing buildings. I am not sure how the PUD overlay <br />will work in relation to the current zoning. The current zoning has provisions for the existing <br />front setback to be an average of the adjacent properties. With regard to setbacks for accessory <br />structures, lets say a garage, I see a lot of precedence in town for zero lot line setbacks, especially <br />on a side yard, and particularly on a side street to an alley. Maybe there could be another set of <br />standards for "side street houses". Back to the idea of front yard setbacks, I think a building <br />should recognize the street and have a certain relationship to that. <br />With regard to the strips of land between the side walk and curb, I would like to see those <br />landscaped, (they really are landscape strips). I don't know if that would be a zoning issue or a <br />Public Works issue, because they are part of the public right-of-way. <br />With regard to building height, I like the idea of maintaining the building heights as they are in <br />Old Town now. I am not sure that I would agree with a set maximum building height. That has <br />a tendency to encourage large box like structures with flat roofs. I would prefer to see a line set <br />to the eve, or to the mid -point of a roof. This is somewhat in relation to the F.A.R. You could <br />have two houses. side by sidewith the_same .mass.. One with anunfinished. attic, which would <br />meet the F.A.R., the other with a finished attic, which would not meet the F.A.R. I am not sure <br />that makes a lot of sense. It would seem that the concern would be massing and the density of the <br />massing on the property, not the useful space within the massing. Maybe there are other methods <br />that could be used, something like bulk plane setbacks. That might also be useful in terms of <br />providing solar access to neighbors. <br />