Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTIJS <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 25, 2006 <br />the, if possible, iC would be preferable to have these units in rear yards <br />which may decrease the potential for disturbing neighbors. It was the <br />consensus of those present that the side yard setback for sheds and air <br />conditioning equipment should be increased to 6 feet. <br />The issue of size of accessory buildings to the size of a house was <br />discussed with the City Planner noting the recent code amendment which <br />says Chat detached accessory buildings cannot be more than 10% of the <br />rear yard area It was further noted that the CUP process for second <br />garages provides the City with additional controls over this issue. <br />There was discussion about whether or not to allow the use of corrugated <br />siding and roofing on accessory buildings. There appeared to belittle <br />supporC for the use of corrugated siding, while some support for metal <br />roofing. <br />The averaging of front yard setback was discussed, with supporC for <br />requiring a new home built in an established neighborhood to maintain an <br />average front yard setback consistent with the existing homes in the <br />neighborhood. <br />The next issues reviewed pertained to fencing requirements. There was <br />support for requiring the use of maintena~rce-free materials for fences <br />constructed within two feet of the property line. The issue of what <br />materials constituted maintenance-free would be decided at a later date. <br />Other staff recommendations were acceptable. <br />Montour suggested that "generators" be added to the list of equipments <br />that generates noise in item #8 on page 12. <br />On page I5, the suggested language for G.2.b. "may be provided" should <br />be changed to "may be required". <br />There was discussion about the ability of the City to require and regulate <br />the maintenance of existing tree cover on developed lots. Given the <br />concerns raised, the consensus was to focus preserving existing tree cover <br />to the extent possible on new development. <br />There was extensive discussion about outdoor storage issues for <br />residential properties. There was consensus to add RV's and boats and <br />any other motorized vehicle that requires a license to paragraph N. on <br />page 19. The Planner suggested that once the decision is made on the <br />allowable location of residential outdoor storage, a diagram will be <br />included iu the code. There was discussion of whether or not to allow <br />RV's, boats, etc. to be stored on driveways in front yards versus limiting <br />this storage to rear yards, There was also discussion of whether or not to <br />