3A Public Hearing 2007 0116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Drafi Mi/JI/tes E,cerpl - .Ioint Board/Planning COII/missio/J Work Sessio/J Octo her 19, 2006 4 Commissione.' Kleebauer clarified, noting that the issue of garage spaee would bring the question ofregulations inside rather then limiting it to the outside. Boardmember Chin, retuming to the subject of FAR standards, requested c1arifieation about the combination of RS and RS- VP lots that would require BZA review under the recommendations that Planning Manager Pollart outlined. She noted that the proposal would mean a huge change from ClllTent practiee. Planning Manager Pollart agreed, noting that the proposal would indeed result in more public hearings, more stall work, and more BZA review, and explained that the stallrecornmendation resulted from a sense that large homes, regardless of the zoning district, seem to call for a higher level of review than simply administrative approval. Referring again to one of the charts distributed, Ms. Pollart explained that none or the homes in the RS Distriet would have resulted in BZA review with a large horne threshold at 4,000 square feet. Similarly, none of the RO properties would have required BZA review unless there was a corresponding condo conversion involved, and those in the RS- VP District went to the BZA not because they were large, but because all involved height exception requests. Community Development Director Hom added that stall is seeking balance, and is not trying to eliminate the speedier, less expensive, more expeditious administrative approval process for most homeowners. The question becomes whether a higher level of review - which costs more and takes longer - is needed when it comes to large homes. Planning Manager Pollart requested a sense of whether Cornmissioners favor the idea of establishing FAR limits or codi fled guidelines such as a daylight plane. Chair Raposo agreed that guidelines are needed to give the process some structure to help not only applicants but also the BZA, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Boardmember Chin asked whether FAR standards would alter the maximum lot coverage standards that are already in place. Planning Manager Pollart said that FAR standards would not afTect the current lot coverage standards, because lot coverage is just what is on the ground, exclusive therefore of any second floor, which FAR would accommodate, and such "accessories" as pools and patios that are open on at least two sides. Commissioner Kleebaucr pointed out that only one of the properties listed on the Planning Department's FAR chart properties would have required BZA review under the 50(% FAR standard. Commissioner Collier suggested that the more guidelines we have in place, the easier it becomes to explain things to applicants in ways that are not difficult to understand, the simpler the process becomes, and the lewer the exceptions are necessary. She wondered ifthe additional provision for garage space beyond a FAR standard is necessary, considering that so many garages serve a purpose other than parking. Commissioner Collier also favors a second-story step-back to improve neighborhood compatibi lity, and other standards that avoid more "improvements" that have nothing in common with the house to which they are added. Boardmemhu Pearson would like to see a maximum FAR established, asking how sLlch guidelines would affect RO lots with a single-family home 011 the front or the property and a duplex in back. He favors limits that would restrict too much coverage of a single lot.