Laserfiche WebLink
3. Would it be appropriate to reduce the setbacks and separation requirements <br />for the subject site? <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin stated that he hopes Mr. Huff can work out the variance issues <br />with the City at the time the project comes back as an application. He indicated that he <br />does not have enough information at this time and it is a matter of what the applicant <br />will bring back to show that evidence and findings can be made for the variances for <br />setbacks and separation requirements. <br /> <br />Commissioners Pearce and Olson agreed. <br /> <br />Chair Narum stated that potentially, she would rather see a variance, particularly on the <br />front yard setback. She suggested that if the cottage was torn down and remodeled, <br />there would be more space on the first floor, thereby decreasing the impact on the <br />second floor. She indicated that she would support a variance that would allow the <br />house to come closer to the street if it would achieve this. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce agreed with this point. She stated that massing and <br />separation/setback issues should be discussed and recommended that a shadow study <br />be done. She indicated support for the balcony and porch in the front and would be <br />supportive of moving the house forward if the impact on the second story could be <br />reduced. <br /> <br />Chair Narum indicated that this is similar to what was done on Spring Street regarding <br />granting a parking variance in order to move the structure off of the back property line. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson stated that he concurred with this. He noted that he had an initial <br />concern about massing, but he is not as concerned at this time after hearing all the <br />input. He indicated that he would also favor the footprint moving forward to enable <br />reduction of space on the second floor. <br /> <br />Questions No. 4 and No. 6 were considered together. <br /> <br />4. Should tandem parking in the front yard setback be allowed? <br /> <br />6. Is the attached garage located at the front of the house appropriate for the <br />site? <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin stated that there is already tandem parking at the back. He <br />indicated that for him, it is a matter of design and how the garage fits. He added that he <br />needed more information about the opposition for a garage, and why it is required or <br />important to be set back or be a stand-alone garage. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan noted that the garage design is consistent with the neighborhood which is <br />different from tract neighborhoods. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, April 13, 2011 Page 15 of 19 <br /> <br />