2015-11-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Page 3 requirement ridiculous at the time and continued to do so, questioning why 3’ wouldn’t be 93 sufficient unless based on maintenance requirements needing 5’. 94 Mr. Lloyd elaborated on the proposed 6’ coming from building code thresholds applying to a 95 building wall and addressing whether or not a heightened fire wall existed adjacent neighboring 96 properties/buildings. Based on staff’s research, Mr. Lloyd noted that if taking the property line 97 between buildings in the future, there would already be a 3’ separation for both properties. 98 Whether or not that intent would ever apply, Mr. Lloyd advised he was unsure, but clarified that 99 was the initial rationale. If the accessory building was only set back 3’, Mr. Lloyd opined that was 100 also artificial and may not allow fire suppression and actually allow fire transfer from one building 101 to another. Other than for this stipulation, Mr. Lloyd stated he was unsure of any other practical 102 intent for a setback less than 5’; and he found that less arbitrary than 4’ or less since property 103 maintenance would get more difficult with any less space, thus the proposed familiar figure of 5’. 104 Mr. Paschke concurred, noting it would remain consistent with setback requirements. 105 Member Daire noted he had personally also run into this metric recently when checking on a 106 building permit. During his research, Member Daire advised that he had found that the 6’ metric 107 had origins in fire code and was intended to put enough space between combustible walls so 108 transfer of fire from one structure to another would be difficult if impossible. Therefore, Member 109 Daire suggested the fire code may be the place where there was a genesis for that number. 110 While open to the will of the Commission, Member Cunningham opined she found little harm and 111 greater benefit, based on her personal experience, in lowering the footage to 4’. 112 Chair Boguszewski questioned practical applications for maintaining grass in that area behind an 113 accessory structure or between an accessory and principle structure; and remedies the City had 114 available to ensure compliance in maintaining that area. 115 Mr. Lloyd advised that City Code has a maximum height for grass; however, also noted that if the 116 noncompliance issue was in the back yard, no one from the City staff was likely to notice the 117 problem unless a complaint was filed by a neighbor or other resident, at which time the City could 118 then respond accordingly and become involved in the code compliance process (e.g. abatement) 119 as applicable. 120 Mr. Paschke advised that the City’s housing maintenance code could also be utilized. 121 Chair Boguszewski led discussion based on philosophical questions and responsible 122 homeowners based on realities of a situation and trusting homeowners to effectively and sensible 123 manage their private property, or whether the City needed to adjust minimums to guide proper 124 behavior. 125 Chair Boguszewski spoke in support of a 3’ setback in line with fire code. 126 If located in a smaller area, Member Bull opined it may be more economical to install a concrete 127 pathway between for maintenance purposes. 128 Member Gitzen opined he found 4’ to 5’ to be arbitrary, and would support a 3’ setback. 129 Private Swimming Pools 130 If amending one section for dwelling structures, Member Murphy questioned if there was also a 131 need for minimum distances related to swimming pools for uniformity. 132 Mr. Lloyd responded that the intent with phrasing wasn’t to suggest everything looked the nicer if 133 at the same footage, but in an attempt to meet resident expectations; and with both a shed and 134 pool considered accessory to the principle structure, he would suggest simplicity of expectations 135 versus differences. 136 Given his perception that 4’, 5’ or 6’ all seemed arbitrary, Member Murphy stated he found if the 137 City assigned a factual basis for a number such as 3’ that seemed easier to support. 138 C hair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 139