SR 06:247 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT shadow study of the Boag home because it was higher and set farther east than the proposed home, In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether someone would normally stop in the driveway to open a door, Ms, Decker replied that the intent was to drive the vehicle into the rear area, She noted that question was beyond staffs normal planning analysis and that ten feet was required and provided for in the plans, meeting the requirement of the Code, In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether staff had considered a tandem-parking configuration for the garage, Ms, Decker replied that it had been discussed but because of the limited space in the rear, that it appeared it would reduce access to the other areas of the garage, They had also considered rotating the garage, but it also appeared to create difficulties in backing out The current solution seemed to be the most reasonable possibility, Commissioner Olson commented that the applicants could take the approach that the car doors be opened as they pulled into the driveway off the street or after they have driven down the full length of the driveway, Commissioner Olson noted that he had problems with the fence along the driveway and believed the applicants had cleared that up for him by operating in such a way as to allow the fence to be there, In his view, privacy was the major issue, and he believed that Ms, Lutman had a point that her privacy would be compromised by this project. He noted that she would also have a privacy issue from the home to the south of the Boyce home, as would the Boyces, He noted that privacy issues were a fact of living in a Downtown area, He complimented staff on a job well done, and believed their recommendation should be upheld, Commissioner Fox noted that this was the second variance she could recall regarding a Downtown neighborhood, She believed it was important to examine the character of the surrounding houses and added that the Boag issue before Council regarded an FAR of 26 percent. While she did not oppose the sideyard setback variance, she did oppose a project over 40-percent FAR, She would support a project of around 2,700 square feet, which would be around the square footage of a 40-percent FAR, Regarding privacy issues on First Street, staff had previous recommended that the windows of the garage that comprised the second unit be reconfigured and suggested elements like stained glass instead of regular glass, With respect to the garage, she could not support an accessory structure that would be wider than the regular house, She suggested reconfiguring the garage to accommodate two cars with a reduced roofline height with an appropriate pitch, She could not support staff s recommendation to increase the FAR but could support the other variances, Commissioner Blank noted that this application was a challenge because he did not believe a view easement existed in this case, While he was sensitive to the privacy issue, he did not believe it was a watershed event. He would have liked to see this project as a workshop first. He believed the garage roof was higher than it should be, regardless of the presence of a variance, He would like to see a tandem-like garage that could accommodate three cars, but not expand the footprint. He noted that there was a lot of room in the hardscape area that could be utilized. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 27, 2006 Page 7 of8