HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-1996 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1996
CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN
3:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Cliff Chisholm, John DeHaas, Kim Walker, Paul Gleye, Ed
McCrone.
STAFF PRESENT: Dean Patterson, Urban Designer/Associate Planner; Derek Strahn,
Historic Preservation Officer; Andy Epple, Planning Director; Carol Schott, Recording
Secretary
VISITORS PRESENT: Linda Bell, Calvin Smith, Alice Smith, Ted Carter, Mike
Promisco, Brad Carter, Joan Rudberg, Mr. Webster
Ms. Walker called the meeting to order. Mr. Chisholm then Chaired the meeting.
A. PROJECT REVIEWS
1. Webster COA/DEV #Z-9620 - (Patterson)
311 South 3rd Avenue
- A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with a Deviation to allow
an addition to the west elevation consisting of three stories (basement, main
level, second floor) to allow for more bedrooms, a larger kitchen and a family
room.
Urban Designer/Associate Planner Dean Patterson presented the project. He described the
deviations, location, and zoning in and near the project. Staff is supporting the design. He
noted that the 4th Avenue fence inside the rear yard will be altered for parking. Staff
suggests a condition that the parking be moved out of the side yard. Planner Patterson
explained the structure as it is and as it is proposed. He noted the applicant is planning a
future addition of a deck, which will require a separate review process to be sure it is
compatible with the building and the historic neighborhood.
Mr. McCrone clarified whether the proposed parking is in the required side yard. Planner
Patterson stated it was.
Mr. Gleye inquired what they plan to do with the basement; is the entrance still so
conspicuous? Mr. Webster stated they had moved the entrance to the rear as recommended.
Mr. Gleye inquired if they knew about the ordinance concerning parking in the side yard.
Ms. Bell stated yes, however, most of the neighbors park in their side yards. Planner
Patterson noted that if they move the parking space a few feet towards the alley, the parking
space will be within the rear yard, which is permissible. Discussion ensued on other parking
options including a "shared access" and a deviation. Planning,Director Epple noted that the
1
Planning Office would investigate the need for a deviation for parking.
Mr. Webster noted that he plans to remove the concrete slab driveway along side of the
house. Discussion followed on the deck addition. Mr. Webster noted the deck was a few
years into the future, not a few months. A discussion on the dimensions of the plans and
project followed.
Mr. Gleye moved to recommend approval of the project to the City Commission subject to
Staff condition #1 and changing Staff condition #2 to read, "that the parking may encroach
into the side yard setback as proposed or by the same amount as the neighboring property,
whichever is less". Mr. Gleye noted the reason for changing condition #2 is to preserve the
historic situation. Mr. Chisholm seconded the motion. Ms. Walker moved to amend the
condition #2 to allow a deviation 8 feet into the side yard setback and 6 1/2 feet into the rear
yard setback. Mr. DeHaas seconded the motion. Due to a tie vote, the amendment didn't
pass. Mr. DeHaas and Ms. Walker voted in favor of the amendment. Mr. Chisholm and
Mr. Gleye voted against the amendment. Discussion ensued to clarify Mr. Gleye's motion.
Planning Director Epple clarified that the main motion meant to support a deviation, if
necessary, on the parking. The main motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
2