Laserfiche WebLink
_ :... _ <br />� - - <br />�' - - --- <br />. � <br />� =�- - -•:: - - - = ._ - �- - -__�... , -- --- <br />� � <br />----- -------- � - . __. __ .:_.,_ ., _. — --- __.___ r- --� . .. r.__�. � : ; - -- <br />Sheds and Garages <br />Code Revision Report <br />June 7, 2000 <br />Page 2 . <br />4. <br />G <br />By CUP, garages shall not be wider than 35 feet. Interestingly enough, there is no similar <br />provision for garages less than 952 square feet, which means that a person could <br />unconditionally have a 40-foot wide garage with access for four vehicles. Should this be <br />made consistent? In which way? <br />Some walkout ramblers with attached garages could (and do) have lower level garages that <br />can be accessed from the side or rear. How should the Code address multi-level garages? <br />Footprint only? <br />The Code allows for a 400 square-foot shed, but not a second garage. Should the Code be <br />amended to allow for a second garage, as long as the 1,400 square foot maximum is <br />observed? <br />There is a consensus that newer homes with large attached garages fronting the street are <br />unappealing. Should the City, by virtue of some "perFormance zoning" techniques, <br />encourage the location of garages in the rear yard, thus preserving the aesthetic appeal of <br />the home? <br />Other issues which will need to be addressed. <br />Our Code requires accessory buildings be set back six feet from any other building. The <br />Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires only a three-foot setback. Staff would propose that <br />our Zoning Code be amended to be consistent with the UBC. In addition, the Zoning Code <br />should be amended such that setbacks less than three feet be allowed with written approval <br />of the building official to ensure fire code standards are incorporated into the proposed <br />construction. <br />2. In 1998, when the Zoning Code relating to accessory structures was last revised, a <br />stipulation was added that required a CUP if the footprint of the proposed garage was larger <br />than the footprint of the home. Staff is suggesting that this provision be repealed because <br />(1) it is an administrative headache, (2) is not fair or equitable for owners of small houses, <br />and (3) creates additional work for staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. <br />Recommendation: <br />Please direct staff as to your individual thoughts on each of the addressed items as well as other <br />related issues so that an ordinance may be drafted for your action on June 21, 2000. <br />. <br />�.���.,..�.�t�s2.::� �-�..�;:�"Yt.. <br />James Ericson, Planner <br />