2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 14 back, it seemed like a way to appease certain concerns and issues expressed with 656 current design standards. 657 Based on the number of split level homes in his neighborhood, as well as other vicinities, 658 having a garage in front and house face/living quarters above, Member Olsen questioned 659 if line 37 of the staff report meant that, in that type of application, a garage had to be set 660 back 5’ from the front of any part of the house; questioning if that made those existing 661 homes illegal. 662 Mr. Paschke advised that some would be and some not; and others may not be flush if 663 they had a covered entry or porch, a typical addition to some existing homes once they 664 were constructed to allow protection from the weather at those entries, with many 665 seeking such a deviation. No matter how an ordinance was ultimately designed, Mr. 666 Paschke noted that some existing designs would become incompatible, however, he 667 noted that they would be classified as a pre-existing, non-conforming use, no different 668 than any other zoning district. 669 Member Boguszewski stated that the staff recommendation for additional standards 670 would not relieve what he considered to be inappropriate design standards already in 671 place. However, Member Boguszewski advised that this didn’t necessarily mean he 672 would vote in opposition of the proposed additional standards, even though it still left 673 unaddressed his core issues. Member Boguszewski advised that he could support the 674 two (2) of the three (3) staff recommendations, but didn’t mean his discomfort had ended 675 with the underlying ordinance. 676 Mr. Paschke noted that everything was currently up for discussion, and staff had only 677 recommended those items as listed. 678 While supporting the first two (2) staff recommendations, while not striking the 5’ setback 679 clause from current language or at least relax it, Member Boguszewski reiterated that it 680 did not alleviate his initial concerns, but that they could be if language struck the original 681 5’ setback, and adding a provision that language in place to ensure nothing was done 682 that was not aesthetically pleasing. 683 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke confirmed that this applied to new 684 construction only. 685 In listening to the debate, Member Daire opined that it occurred to him that there must 686 have been something in previous code that addressed averaging setbacks; and 687 suggested something that could appeal to him that would average the appearance or 688 garage-forward aspect for infill construction to achieve neighborhood or abutting home 689 consistency, allowing new construction to fit into the neighborhood, even it if meant 690 having the garage door forward. In reviewing the subdivision that had recently come 691 before the Commission with six (6) new homes side-by-side and facing, Member Daire 692 advised that he had no problem applying these particular standards, with them all front 693 facing in a residential environment where a significant portion of existing residences had 694 garage-forward designs. Member Daire stated that he would not have the same concerns 695 as Member Boguszewski, but on the other hand, there was something to be said for 696 reinforcing the character of the majority of the buildings on a street. While agreeing this in 697 one instance, Member Daire suggested it appeared elsewhere to be micro-managing infill 698 development, and questioned if it was necessary that every new residence be 699 constructed to meet these design standards. Member Daire opined that the City was 700 bigger than that to attempt reinforcing existing design, and concurred that there could be 701 more flexibility with those design standards, and he felt ambivalent with having them as a 702 blanket rule. Member Daire opined that he would be more comfortable with some 703 exception for instances when a certain percentage of existing structures have a garage- 704 forward front, and the design would not be denied; however, he wasn’t sure of how to 705 accomplish that particular language. While not reaching a level of comfort with the current 706 language, Member Daire opined that he was not sure how to revise it to accomplish his 707 preference. 708