2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 4 layout, with bikes using one side of the street no matter which direction they were 151 moving, with on-street parking pushed out 2’ to allow parallel parking in a third lane. 152 Chair Gisselquist thanked Mr. Gjerdingen for his comments. 153 b. From the Commission or Staff 154 None. 155 5. Public Hearings 156 Chair Gisselquist reviewed the protocol for Public Hearings and subsequent process. 157 a. PROJECT FILE 0017-20, Zoning Ordinance 158 Section 1004.05A One- and Two-Family Design Standards – further discussion and 159 recommendation regarding amendment to garage door setbacks 160 Chair Gisselquist continued the Public Hearing for Project File 0017-20 at 6:54 p.m. 161 City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request as detailed in the staff report 162 dated August 6, 2014; and results of discussions during 2013, and a subsequent July 7, 163 2014 City Council discussion, specific to one-and two-family residential design standards. 164 Staff recommendations were provided in the staff report. 165 Community Development Director Bilotta noted that the recommendation to allow garage 166 doors to extend forward a maximum of five feet from the predominant portion of the 167 principal use, while still required to meet the thirty-foot principal structure front yard 168 setback, would address 80% of the outstanding issues. However, Mr. Bilotta noted that 169 the City Council was still seeking feedback from the Planning Commission for homes with 170 an attached garage setback significantly from the front property line (e.g. one acre lots 171 and/or not visible from the street). 172 Member Daire sought clarification on line 166 of Section a.2. of staff recommendations 173 and how principle use and principle structures in residential areas are defined, and 174 whether the garage is considered an accessory or ancillary part. 175 Mr. Bilotta clarified that the 5’ extension is from the house, and if any other projections 176 from the house are involved (e.g. room or porch), or if the garage was then equal to the 177 porch façade, the setback would be zero at that point; and in the case of LDR-1 or LDR-2 178 zones, the garage could not extend beyond the porch, but as noted by Mr. Paschke, both 179 zoning designations allow an exemption for a porch extension beyond the 30’ setback 180 requirement from the front property line. 181 Mr. Paschke stated that the difference in principle structure and principle use is defined in 182 the zoning ordinance, but was essentially the same thing. 183 Specific to Section 2.b (lines 169 – 174), Member Boguszewski opined that, based on his 184 recollection, 75’ is so far back from the front property line, that it is no longer visible or 185 germane to the street, so the garage could extend any amount of footage and remain 186 exempt as it was so far back on the lot there would be no “snout house” feel; and if 187 placed that far back no longer affected the character of the neighborhood. Regarding the 188 actual setback amount for those exceptions from the required maximum 5’ extension, 189 Member Boguszewski expressed his interest in hearing staff’s recommendation. 190 Given past discussions, including concerns expressed at that time and reconfirmed by 191 Chair Gisselquist at this time, Member Daire questioned whether the exception was 192 moving into an arbitrary area, and whether actually defining the setback footage for those 193 unique larger properties would address those concerns. 194 Members Boguszewski and Daire debated various scenarios that would apply in both 195 amendments to Section 1004.05.A.2 as detailed in lines 162 – 174 of the staff report 196 based on the actual setback and maximum extension of the garage face from the 197 principle structure. 198