Laserfiche WebLink
' f. . <br />1. <br />1 TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />SUBJECT; <br />Dick Benson, City Administrator <br />Alan P. Olson, City Planner <br />March 26, 1981 <br />Ordinance Revisions - Setback Performance Standards <br />Issues <br />1.Existing standards vary the setback requirements by zoning <br />district, not actual lot size. Especially in the 2 and 5 acre <br />zones, many variances have been reviewed because the basic <br />standards are impossible to apply on the many substandard <br />lots of record. If required setbacks were correlated to lot <br />size, staff could issue permits with less delay and no adverse <br />effect on existing situations. <br />2.Existing accessory building setbacks are confusing and some­ <br />what contradictory. They are less- than the principle building <br />setbacks, unrealistically so in the 2 and 5 acre zones. <br />Making accessory and principle building setbacks the seune will <br />simplify writing, understanding and enforcing the ordinance, <br />and will provide realistic rural setbacks consistent with <br />ordinance intent. <br />Performance Standard Comparision Table <br />Existing regulations shown with suggested changes in parenthesis: <br />Lot Area 1/2 acre 1 acre 2 acre 5 acre <br />Width 100 140 200 300 <br />Front yard 30 35 50 100 <br />Rear yard - Princ.30 30 50 (3 a)100 (3 abc) <br />- Access.5 (10)5 (10)5 (30)5 (50) <br />Side yard - Princ.10 10 30 (3 a)50 (3 abc) <br />- Access.10 10 10 (30)10 (50) <br />•f.T'-VS