3A Public Hearing 2007 0116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Draft Minutes Excerpt - 12/14/06 Planning Commission Meeting 3 would also amend Sub-section E to add review and approval requirements pertaining to new large homes. . Article 5, Section 2-582 Commissioners saw a slide of the garden feature that triggered the amendment proposal. No building permit was required, and hence no planning review occurred. If the proposed amendment is approved, any outdoor feature encompassing more than 120 square feet andlor exceeding 10 feet in height will trigger administrative staff review and notification of adjacent neighbors, giving them a chance to evaluate the proposal before it is built and make comments to the ZEO if they choose. . Article 5, Section 2-584 This section of the Code lays out, in table format, the type of review needed for single-story and two- and three-story construction. The proposed language would incorporate a specific section on "new large homes." In most R Districts, this includes requirements for a Major Residential Site Plan Review, notice to adjacent properties, and BZA action at a public hearing. In the RS- VP District, noticing goes to properties within a 500-foot radius, and also includes View Preservation Review. . Article 17. Section 4-1704 The proposal would amend standards for parking requirements for RO District developments. In the past, a significant number of condominium-conversion projects have come before the BZA, with residents often expressing concems about parking. In consequence, the proposed modification would make the RO District standards match those in the RS District - two covered spaces for each unit. (RO currently allows uncovered parking as well as tandem parking.) Secretary Pollart said that this was one topic that generated animated discussion at the informal BZA hearing the previous week. Several Board Members wanted to retain the provision for uncovered tandem parking, and in fact expand it to the other R Districts, especially for lots that have substandard widths. Secretary Pollart explained that the standard [or covered spaces stems from aesthetic concems and to avoid jockeying cars back and forth so people can get in and out. Also, to address the issue of larger homes, the new language calls for an additional parking space, which could be uncovered, for residences exceeding 4,000 square feet or with five or more bedrooms. . Article 24, Section 5-2424 For whatever reason, the pace of condominium-conversion applications, primarily in the RO Districts but also in the RD (such as duplexes on Pacific Avenue and Orchard Avenue), picked up steam in 2006. Because these applications have already undergone the requisite Site Plan Review, it seemed an unnecessary burden on Planning staff as well as the BZA to hear such applications. Accordingly, proposed language would call for ZEO administrative review. The same Parcel Map requirements would apply, but it would be an administrative process rather than one going before the BZA for a use permit. Summarizing last week's BZA meeting, Secretary Pollart said there were no public comments. The Board expressed consensus on changes proposed in regards RS- VP garden features, FAR standards, Daylight Plane standards, and the review processes for large homes and condominium conversions. Board Members did not agree on the parking proposal, and one did not feel that a single additional space for large homes was sufficient. Secretary Pollart also indicated that for