pages: PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 8 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Cormack inquired whether the Board would consider amending the section of the Code which required two additional feet of sideyard for two stories. The five-foot minimum sideyard for one story could also be the standard for a two-story building. Anything less than five feet that was nonconforming would be allowed to use the (k) & (1). Vice President Cook believed that a conforming sideyard that is to be built higher is not as much of a problem as a nonconforming sideyard to be increased in height, which would create a very narrow setback; the additional setback would allow adequate light at the property line. Ms. Altschuler stated that would allow for the shading study to prove whether or not the second story would impact the neighbors. Ms. Kohlstrand would like the setback requirements to be more equitable, and would support a second-story setback that matched the first-story setback. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding shading, Ms. Altschuler replied that shading would not be as critical for a bathroom as for a living room. She noted that design solutions were available to neighbors to mitigate shading effects. A house with a conforming setback would not require shadow studies. She added that staff would create a summary of the Board comments to be included the next time the Development Code is examined. She noted that most (k) & (1) issues brought before staff were generally resolved equitably between the neighbors, and she expected that trend to continue; very few issues have been brought before the Board. The Board had no concerns regarding Building Height Limits and the Definition of Replacement-in- Kind. Regarding parking, Ms. McNamara did not support deleting the 20-foot parking restriction requirement, but was open to reducing it to a 10-foot requirement in order to increase parking. President Cunningham advised that he advocated tandem parking, and believed it would relieve the City's parking pressures and minimize the amount of hardscape on a lot. Ms. Altschuler advised required parking may not be developed in a front yard, and believed the Board supported parking in a driveway that led to the rear of the lot. President Cunningham suggested that new construction not be allowed to utilize this parking scheme. Ms. Altschuler advised that tandem parking was currently allowed to serve one unit, but the parking space must be developed in accordance with the ordinance with respect to landscaping and setbacks. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |