My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-11-2013 Planning Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
04-11-2013 Planning Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/5/2013 12:50:11 PM
Creation date
4/5/2013 12:49:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The issue noted by staff is that the code permits up to three unrelated adults living as a <br />single household to meet the definition of family, meaning that a family may mean up to <br />five unrelated adults, along with children of any two of the adult residents. This <br />condition often leads to issues in situations of parking, maintenance and nuisance <br />issues for the neighborhood. Staff is proposing that a change be made to the text that <br />would limit the family definition and associated boarding allowances to a maximum of <br />three unrelated adults. <br />Cul -de -sac length. <br />For many years, the Subdivision Ordinance included a clause that limited cul -de -sac <br />length to a maximum of 500 feet. While the code noted that there were situations where <br />temporary cul -de -sac construction may be required, the code made no explicit <br />exception for those cases. A few years ago, the City revised the code to specify that <br />temporary cul -de -sacs may be longer than 500 feet, and that the City may allow longer <br />cul -de -sacs where: <br />.additional natural resources will be preserved without negatively impacting public <br />safety. This provision shall not be used to increase lot count in a subdivision." <br />There is some concern that the restriction for using this clause only where natural <br />resources are concerned may be overly limiting, and a broader exception should be <br />considered. <br />Each of these items is identified here for discussion by the Planning Commission. <br />Follow -up amendments will be considered depending on the outcome of Commission <br />and City Council review. <br />pc: Kathy Glanzer <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.