Laserfiche WebLink
-■ JP :■%I limit on the number of : limit should be 2 suchurn allowable footprint ' structure be 1,000 s.f. 1 5 acre zones, the same <br />operties exceeding the <br />•ger footprints would be <br />I a permitted use or a <br />at a limit on the total <br />property be adopted as <br />loor area . . .1,200 s.f. <br />r area ... 1,400 s.f. <br />floor area . 2,000 s.f. <br />Lowed a somewhat larger <br />on the formula described <br />sr total floor area per <br />permitted use. <br />10' side setback and 5' <br />itructures 1,000 s.f. or <br />and suggests that for <br />eding 18' in height but <br />cture be allowed either <br />hey meet the principal <br />ires permitted to exceed <br />Ke principal structure <br />lonal increment setback <br />s. <br />•A :v. ‘m <br />i'T <br />m t <br />iti <br />0. Staff recommends that accessory structures exceeding the 1,000 s.f. limit under a conditional use permit be conditioned on the following! A) no future subdivision suiy place the accessory structure on a separate lot that has no main or principal structure; B) any subdivision of a property which contains an oversized accessory structure must maintain a lot size that <br />supports that accessory structure per the requirements of this <br />Code; and C) based on the size of the structure, the required <br />setbacks shall be met for any structure involved in property <br />where new lot lines are created. <br />9. Staff recommends that allowable height for principal <br />structures not be increased, but remain at 3Q* as definedi in the <br />Uniform Building Code. <br />10. Staff recommends that Planning Commission give further <br />thought and discussion to the standards for tennis court fences, <br />paying particular attention to the concern of extremely long and <br />unusually high fencss very near side or rear lot lines. <br />SnFP RKC ATlOn - <br />Staff recommends that Planning Commission review the <br />proposed zoning code conceptual changes, and givez staff <br />direction whether or not those changes are appropriate. If so, <br />staff will draft an actual ordinance amendment in resolution form <br />for your review at the next meeting, which upon your <br />recommendation for approval will be brought to the City Council <br />along with this memo as background, for final Council action and <br />adoption. <br />If you have any concerns about the proposed conceptual <br />changes, please do not hesitate to speak up. I will be pleaaed <br />to discuss the ramifications of the various changes for specific <br />property scenarios. <br />.■j <br />. • • ... . •• • • <br />•• • •. <br />. -J ■■■ <br />;-=\v <br />. • ••‘V. :■ J