2015_1130_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A 53 properties/buildings. Based on staff's research, Mr. Lloyd noted that if taking the property line 5� between buildings in the future, there would already be a 3' separation for both properties. 55 Whether or not that intent would ever apply, Mr. Lloyd advised he was unsure, but clarified that 56 was the initial rationale. If the accessory building was only set back 3', Mr. Lloyd opined that was 57 also artificial and may not allow fire suppression and actually allow fire transfer from one building 53 to another. Other than for this stipulation, Mr. Lloyd stated he was unsure of any other practical 59 intent for a setback less than 5'; and he found that less arbitrary than 4' or less since property 6C maintenance would get more difficult with any less space, thus the proposed familiar figure of 5'. 6'� Mr. Paschke concurred, noting it would remain consistent with setback requirements. 62 Member Daire noted he had personally also run into this metric recently when checking on a 63 building permit. During his research, Member Daire advised that he had found that the 6' metric 6� had origins in fire code and was intended to put enough space between combustible walls so 65 transfer of fire from one structure to another would be difficult if impossible. Therefore, Member 66 Daire suggested the fire code may be the place where there was a genesis for that number. 67 While open to the will of the Commission, Member Cunningham opined she found little harm and 6�? greater benefit, based on her personal experience, in lowering the footage to 4'. 69 Chair Boguszewski questioned practical applications for maintaining grass in that area behind an 7o accessory structure or between an accessory and principle structure; and remedies the City had 7 i available to ensure compliance in maintaining that area. 7:� Mr. Lloyd advised that City Code has a maximum height for grass; however, also noted that if the 73 noncompliance issue was in the back yard, no one from the City staff was likely to notice the 7��. problem unless a complaint was filed by a neighbor or other resident, at which time the City could 7� then respond accordingly and become involved in the code compliance process (e.g. abatement) 7�� as applicable. 7� Mr. Paschke advised that the City's housing maintenance code could also be utilized. 7�3 Chair Boguszewski led discussion based on philosophical questions and responsible 79 homeowners based on realities of a situation and trusting homeowners to effectively and sensible 80 manage their private property, or whether the City needed to adjust minimums to guide proper 8� behavior. 8,`? Chair Boguszewski spoke in support of a 3' setback in line with fire code. 83 If located in a smaller area, Member Bull opined it may be more economical to install a concrete s� pathway between for maintenance purposes. 8� Member Gitzen opined he found 4' to 5' to be arbitrary, and would support a 3' setback. 86 Private Swimming Pools 8? If amending one section for dwelling structures, Member Murphy questioned if there was also a 8� need for minimum distances related to swimming pools for uniformity. 89 Mr. Lloyd responded that the intent with phrasing wasn't to suggest everything looked the nicer if 90 at the same footage, but in an attempt to meet resident expectations; and with both a shed and 9� pool considered accessory to the principle structure, he would suggest simplicity of expectations 92 versus differences. 9:; Given his perception that 4', 5' or 6' all seemed arbitrary, Member Murphy stated he found if the 9�s City assigned a factual basis for a number such as 3' that seemed easier to support. g� Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. Page 8 of 9