PCMin_89Nov6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• " r'r~ {„~. NOV 0~ • ~.:.~. . 'j ' 89 15 ~ 2 ~' ~F&A Td: Commieeian :members and staff FROM: Anne Carroll~/ YtF: Comments on 11/~l8S PC meeting pad~cet DATE: 1Z/3/88 P.2 As I unfortunately oermot attend the 1116 meeting, below are my comments and questions. 1. Mirn~tes: Black snit Carroll came late but were not absent. Z. Stcaeage shea8 i-n The PC may wish to glue some consideration to changing the :review .procedures for storage sheds to include a co~~sideration of whether the "Qe" of the shed is in harmony with the rxting neighborhood.. 1'Ms his come up before as an issue, and while I would not want the PC to try to tai a design review board, the red barn type sheds are just not appropriate in . neighborhoods, and ~milar Bost alternatives are available. Yt continues to trouble me that we re'v'iew all these sheds but don't seem to have a very clear sense Of what we're to watch for. 3. F-1,2: See commextt$ above. Presumably we can approve the current requests subject to the PC's comments, changes, etc. 4. ~'-3: See comments above. This one sounds a bit ill-~anceived...I trust the application will be complete for the PC's review. Clearly it must meet code, but _ _ tl:fs kind of situation increases my need for some design review guidelines. ~~__ 5. F- 4: . See comments above regarding storage sheds. e arding definition of accessory building: I Find this confusing, e.g., what a t a fully enclosed, year-rozuid front or back entryway/porch? That would - em to meet the definition, too, but I wouldn't call it an accessory building. I understand t#ie -need to cover attached garages, but this doesn't yet work. What do other attics use? r .Regarding S-istte a/f: Makes sense to exempt garages in residential zones. I ` don't object to a 4,car garage limitation, but is that the best way of ~ ~ handling thi~t? Isn't the real issue huge accessoa~y structures? I would think V / this could be far, already is) bandied better in reference to all accessory structures rather than just residential garages. . Regarding ~a~ this Code": Sous logical, except your explanation refers to a "Fire Code". If that is different from the t~BC, it would woxk better to refer to it-e UBC arxi arty other. applicable codes. 6. F s: Are these Qora~rarable/fair compared to 1) other cities, and 2) the actual "coat" of tht time/labor/materials, etc., required to deal with these processes? . Recording fee: Y agree that we must do some to ensure these get • recorded in a timely fashion teveryr city has this same problem!}, I question whether we can legalty take that responsibility from the land owner and then charge them far doing it for them, Might see what Lee thinks, or ask Tom Gedde.