11-16-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

General Business Zoning Ordinance Amendment Informal discussion - front yard setbacks Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a change in the City’s front yard setback requirements. Baker asked about a garage with rooms above it. Is the whole garage figured in as part of the front? Teague stated Baker’s question is a good one and should be considered in an ordinance amendment. In all likelihood, the twelve-foot maximum requirement would take effect in the situation of living space above a garage. Schiferl asked about Paragraph 2C, “The base of the addition is not open and its appearance is consistent with the base of the building.” Does that mean an owner cannot build a Victorian porch? Teague responded “the base of the addition is not open” means it cannot be built on stilts, like a deck. The addition must match the existing building. Schiferl stated 12 feet seemed too narrow. Zisla stated the purpose of the amendment would not be to allow porches, but to prevent homes from becoming functionally and economically obsolete. The thought was to allow additions to the living area of a home, not additions such as porches and decks. Baker agreed that encouraging the addition of porches and decks is not appropriate. This amendment is to allow additions to the function of the home. Zisla stated he had a question on Paragraph 2A, “The proposed addition uses the same exterior structure materials and colors as the principle structure and accessories.” The language could be overly restrictive. O’Brien stated the key word is “compatible.” Zisla stated that the draft is very consistent and is well done. Teague stated the Planning Commission had talked about a Board of Appeals. The Zoning Code does not make any provision for a Board of Appeals. The City is setup with the Planning Commission format, with the City Council making the ultimate decision. The Code would have to be changed to create a Board of Appeals. Baker stated he would not support a change in procedure. O’Brien asked if the issue of a 24-foot wide house and the garage is not considered, the maximum width of the addition would have to be reduced. Baker answered affirmatively if there is no living space above the garage. Baker said the garage would be part of the calculation if there are rooms above it. Baker said the Commission seems to be comfortable with the amendment as presented by the City Planner. Announcements and Updates - None Adjourn Motion by Baker, seconded by O’Brien, to . ADJOURN THE MEETING The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. _______________________________________ Cary Teague, City Planner I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\11-16-99.WPD 4