pages: PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2019-07-08 | 8 | Staff Member Tai responded that staff believes that the current development standards for setback, height and lot coverage provide a good envelope to work within, but they can examine that idea further. Board Member Hom said that cool roofs with white paint can create glare that impacts other properties and should be considered when designing the ordinance. Board Member Teague pointed out a change that made the restrictions more onerous than before, which is not consistent with the goals of the item. Board Member Teague said he agrees with the AAPS comment stating that side or rear yards that abut a street should not be exempted from design review. Staff Member Tai said there are definitions in the Zoning Ordinance which clarify that issue and he will double check and make sure it is clear. Board Member Cavanaugh asked if the City would be involved in making sure fences are not built too high. Staff Member Tai said they are not proposing any changes to fence rules. He said fence height is a code enforcement issue, but not as high on the priority list as issues which affect health and safety. Board Member Saheba said streamlining and focusing on larger projects is an important goal. He asked how other ancillary things people do in their yards are reviewed, if at all. Staff Member Tai said that staff would still be doing checks for zoning compliance. Staff Member Thomas added that any modifications that do not require a building permit are already exempt from design review. Staff Member Tai continued his presentation with proposed changes to the Work-Live ordinance. Board Member Curtis suggested that there be a minimum amount of living space defined. Board Member Teague said the 30% living area cap would result in really small, potentially infeasible, living areas for units smaller than 1,000 square feet. He said the 30% requirement would be effective in limiting abuse by people who are really just trying to build housing units. Staff Member Thomas said they always need to maintain a ratio that keeps the units commercial in nature and the residential portion has to be ancillary in nature. He said if the units were primarily residential, they would have to be Measure A compliant. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 8 of 10 July 8, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-07-08.pdf |