Laserfiche WebLink
ionlng Administrator <br />Ru: ■■:<■■■: '..->■ 7.- •-yT^•• „ .• :*J !pi|^;=,vAccessory Structures Zoning Amendment March 13, 1989 Page 2 of 2 <br />Potential Conditional Use Perait Standards - <br />Planning Commission and staff have id <br />possible performance standards and requireme <br />include: <br />/ brought before Planning <br />1987. A public hearing was <br />0 public comments, and the <br />:ed at that meeting, and the <br />:he Planning Commission on <br />1988, and July 6, 1988, <br />conclusion. <br />anning Commission refocus on <br />building on Fox Street posed <br />ry structures ever can be <br />should they be considered <br />standards that must be met? <br />- Lot size vs. height <br />~ Lot size vs. total floor area of all acc <br />- Lot size vs. setback <br />- Setback vs. height <br />- Maximum height of an accessory building <br />- Height as compared to principal structux <br />- Number of accessory buildings on a singl <br />- Floor area of each accessory building <br />- Exceptions for barn/stable/green house <br />- Definition of accessory building height <br />“ Impact of tennis courts and other struct <br />- Minimum permanent acre -ge and setbacks t <br />Removal of oversized accessory building <br />removed <br />tgree of control is necessary <br />current status as a variance <br />ated standards to a building <br />ten boils down to whether the <br />le with granting a building <br />idivldual needs for such a <br />■M <br />Additional side issues brought to llg! <br />include: hardcover in non-LR zones, lot cove <br />the current 30' limitation on the height <br />appropriate. <br />Planning Commission has spent a substan <br />the above noted concerns, and staff has spen <br />revising and rewording based on each successl <br />against the fact that making <br />! will reduce the ability of <br />jent than the performance <br />1. In other words, the City <br />minimum standards are met, <br />11 potential situations are <br />^ ■ <br />Since this back-and-forth process to d <br />standards that the Planning Commission is com <br />whether it is possible to reach a unanimo <br />unsuccessful attempts to cover every conti <br />that it is not feasible or reasonable to sei <br />buildings in general, and that it would <br />accessory building codes more restrictive in <br />buildings as a variance. <br />Staff RecoBaittndatlon - <br />Staff recommends that Planning Commis <br />revising oversized accessory buildings to a <br />would prefer to adopt a series of noncomprehe <br />individual code sections rather than continu <br />seems to be leading us in circles. <br />P: • <br />.......■- ■ U <br />'.Vy :‘•: 'V--' <br />yil '--■-im <br />'llmsmm <br />M: * m <br />F?'- ' 'I~ '• raMmir , y <br />MSI <br />-..V. .ir-- ^SV; y <br />mm7 aBP'' <br />-Y.i <br />Hit <br />w <br />■■ tv:.;- V. . y.^- <br />S'V.t :'Vv/v.; <br />..• • • . -::s- ■ <br />•-r Y s;: ’ ‘y