My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998-03-12 Packet
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2022
>
1998
>
1998-03-12 Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2009 10:05:58 AM
Creation date
10/16/2009 10:03:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />, <br /> <br />MEMO <br /> <br />February 2,1999 <br /> <br />To: P1amllng and Zomng Commission <br />From: Paul Palzer, Public Works DirectorlBuilding Official~ <br /> <br />Re: Ordinance 4 (34.05-2) and (34.06-1) <br /> <br />Mr. Wolf of 6933 Sumac Court has requested to build an accessory building in the <br />backyard area ofhis comer lot. The proposed size is 22' x 26' with a ten foot door and a <br />patio driveway area to the building. Mr. Wolf already has an attached garage and is <br />calling this structure an accessory shed. <br /> <br />The ordinance is vague or indeterminable to this request because of the following items: <br />First, the area of an accessory building is based upon 10% of the rear yard area. By <br />definition, a comer lot has two front yards and two side yards, hence no back yard to <br />determine the size of the accessory building. Second, the ordinance is also mute on what <br />are the requirements for a storage or tool shed verses a garage. My interpretation for a <br />garage is a structure capable of housing a vehicle. This would exclude structures with <br />doors too small to permit access by a vehicle or having a floor incapable of supporting a <br />vehicle such as a raised plywood floor. <br /> <br />From the ordinance it is obvious that the intent was to limit the number of garages on a lot <br />to only one, either attached or detached. The ordinance also allowed one additional shed <br />for storage purposes only. It would reason that the storage purpose for the shed is items <br />oth er than vehicles. <br /> <br />I would request that the Commission hold a public hearing to modifY this ordinance to <br />address items which are now undefined such as the rear yard on a comer lot and to also <br />define more precisely what is allowed by the terms "storage" or "tool" shed. It may be <br />easiest to define a "shed" by building size and door width requirements. <br /> <br />I also would request that the Commission address the issue of the maximum size of a <br />garage whether it is attached or detached. The building code allows a garage to be up to <br />1000 square feet in size but the city has the authority to limit this requirement to fit its <br />needs. In the newer developments the city has required larger garages to reduce the <br />number and size of sheds in the rear yard areas. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.