HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposed Changes to Residential Setbacks (6/5/1995) Amends ORD 4404, 4502
ww
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 4549
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
CHAPTER 31, ZONING CODE, OF TITLE IV (BUILDING REGULATIONS) ,
OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF
THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" RELATING TO THE SETBACK
PROVISIONS OF THE RC (RESOURCE CONSERVATION) , R-1
(RESIDENTIAL-1 UNIT/ACRE) , R-8 (RESIDENTIAL-8 UNITS/ACRE,
R-10 (RESIDENTIAL-10 UNITS/ACRE) , R-24 (RESIDENTIAL-24
UNITS/ACRE) AND RM (RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY) ZONES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION I. Section 4-31-2 .A of Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of
Title IV (Building Regulations) , of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is
hereby amended to read as follows :
4-31-2 : DEFINITIONS :
A. ABUTTING: Lots sharing common property lines .
ACCESSORY USE OR BUILDING: A subordinate use or
building located upon the same lot occupied by a principal use or
building with which it is customarily associated, but clearly
incidental to.
ADJACENT: Lots located across a street, railroad or right
of way, except limited access roads .
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS OFFICE: A use containing
one or more of the day-to-day functions (e .g. , management, payroll,
information systems, inventory control) related to the operation of
the company or affiliated corporate group.
ADULT FAMILY HOME: A residential dwelling unit providing
personal care, room and board to more than one person, but not more
ORDINANCE NO. 4549
than four (4) adults, not related by blood or marriage to the
person(s) providing the service . A maximum of six (6) adults may
be permitted if the Washington State Department of Social and
Health Services determines the home is of adequate size and the
home and provider are capable of meeting standards and
qualifications as provided for in chapters 70 . 128 RCW and 388-76
WAC.
ADULT MOTION PICTURE THEATER: An enclosed building used
for presenting motion picture films video cassettes, cable
television or any other such visual media for observation by
patrons there, distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
matter depicting, describing or relating to "specified sexual
activities" or "specified anatomical areas" as hereafter defined:
1 . Specified anatomical areas: Less than completely
and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttock and
female breast below a point immediately above the top of the
areola; and human male genitals in a discernible turgid state, even
if completely and opaquely covered.
2 . Specified sexual activities : Human genitals in a
state of sexual stimulation or arousal; acts of human masturbation,
sexual intercourse or sodomy; fondling or other erotic touching of
human genitals, pubic region, buttock or female breast .
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing used as a primary residence
for any household whose income is less than eighty percent (800) of
the median annual income adjusted for household size, as determined
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the
2
ORDINANCE NO. 4549
..r
Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area, who pay no more than thirty
percent (300) of household income for housing expenses .
ALLEY: A public vehicular right of way not over thirty
feet (30 ' ) wide .
AIRPORT HAZARD: Any structure, tree or use of land
which obstructs the air space required for the flight of aircraft
in landing or taking off at the airport or is otherwise hazardous
to landing or takeoff of aircraft .
ANIMALS, SMALL: Dogs, cats, rabbits, ferrets,
chickens, ducks, geese, birds, rodents and other animals of similar
size and characteristics .
ANIMALS, MEDIUM: Goats, sheep, pigs and other animals
of similar size and characteristics .
ANIMALS, LARGE: Horses, ponies, cows, llamas, oxen,
buffalo, deer and other animals of similar size and
characteristics .
AQUIFER: A geological unit of porous and permeable rock,
sand or gravel capable of yielding usable amounts of water.
AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA (APA) : The portion of an
aquifer within the zone of capture and recharge area for a well or
well-field owned or operated by the City or the recharge-discharge
area of a spring used for water supply by the City as defined in 4-
31-4 of this Code .
ARTERIAL: A major or secondary arterial as specified in
the City' s Arterial Street Plan.
3
Amok
441110 ORDINANCE NO. 4549
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) : An average of at least one
motor vehicle crossing in one direction per working day for any
continuous thirty (30) day period.
SECTION II . Subsections 4-31-4 . 1 .D. 5 .a and 4-31-
4 . 1 .D.5 . c. (2) of Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title IV (Building
Regulations) , of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to
read as follows :
4-31-4 .1.D.5 .a: Front Yard: A minimum depth of thirty
feet (30 ' ) .
4-31-4 .1.D. 5 .c. (2) : Corner Lots : The side yard along a
street shall not be less than thirty feet (30 ' ) in depth: provided,
that for pre-existing legal lots one hundred fifty feet (150 ' ) or
less in depth, the side yard shall be a minimum of twenty five feet
(25 ' ) .
SECTION III . Subsections 4-31-5 .D.5 .a, b and c . (1) of
Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations) , of
Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City
of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows :
4-31-5 .D.5 .a: Front Yard:
(1) Along streets existing as of September 1, 1995, the
minimum front yard setback shall not be less than twenty feet
(20 ' ) . A front yard setback of less than twenty feet (20 ' ) may be
allowed by the Development Services Division if the average front
setback of primary structures on lots abutting the side yards is
less than twenty feet (20 ' ) . In such case, the front yard setback
shall not be less than the average of the front setback of the
4
w.r
ORDINANCE NO. 4 5 4 9•
�++�
abutting primary structures; however, in no case shall a minimum
setback of less than twenty feet (20 ' ) be allowed for garages which
access from the front yard street (s) . Modifications to this
requirement due to site constraints or lot configuration may be
approved by the Development Services Division.
(2) Along streets created after September 1, 1995, a
minimum depth of fifteen feet (15 ' ) for the primary structure and a
minimum depth of twenty feet (20 ' ) for attached garages which
access from the front yard street (s) . The front yard setback of
the primary structure may be reduced to ten feet (10 ' ) if all
parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a
public right of way or alley.
b. Rear Yard: A minimum depth of twenty feet (20 ' ) .
c . Side Yards :
(1) Interior Lots : A minimum depth of five feet (5 ' ) .
SECTION IV. Subsections 4-31-6 .D.7 of Chapter 31, Zoning
Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations) , of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows :
4-31-6 .D.7 : Setbacks .
a. Primary Structures and Attached Accessory Structures :
(1) Front Yard:
(i) Along streets existing as of September 1, 1995,
the minimum front yard setback shall not be less than twenty feet
(20 ' ) . A front yard setback of less than twenty feet (20 ' ) may be
allowed by the Development Services Division if the average front
setback of primary structures on lots abutting the side yards is
5
1400
ORDINANCE NO.
4549
less than twenty feet (20 ' ) . In such case, the front yard setback
shall not be less than the average of the front setback of the
abutting primary structures; however, in no case shall a minimum
setback of less than twenty feet (20 ' ) be allowed for garages which
access from the front yard street (s) . Modifications to this
requirement due to site constraints or lot configuration may be
approved by the Development Services Division.
(ii) Along streets created after September 1, 1995,
a minimum depth of fifteen feet (15 ' ) for the primary structure and
a minimum depth of twenty feet (20 ' ) for attached garages which
access from the front yard street (s) . The front yard setback of
the primary structure may be reduced to ten feet (10 ' ) if all
parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a
public right of way or alley.
(2) Rear Yard: A minimum depth of twenty feet (20 ' ) .
However, if the lot abuts a lot zoned RC, R-1, R-5 or R-8, a twenty
five foot (25 ' ) setback shall be required of all attached dwelling
units .
(3) Side Yards :
(i) Interior Lots :
(a) Detached single family and attached
accessory structures on lots which do not have zero lot lines,
shall have a minimum depth of five feet (5 ' ) on each side of the
detached unit .
(b) Attached single-family, semi attached
single family, townhouse, duplex, triplex, fourplex and attached
6
ORDINANCE NO. 4549
accessory structures . A minimum depth of ten (10) feet for the
unattached side (s) of the structure .
(c) Special Requirements : If the R- 10 lot
abuts a lot Zoned RC, R-1, R-5 , or R-8, a twenty five foot (25 ' )
interior sideyard setback shall be required of all structures
containing three or more attached dwelling units on a single lot .
(4) Corner Lots : The side yard along a street shall
not be less than fifteen feet (15 ' ) in depth, except on previously
platted lots which are fifty feet (50 ' ) or less in width in which
case the minimum side yard shall be no less than ten feet (10 ' ) in
depth. If a corner lot is less than the minimum width required by
this Section but greater than fifty (50 ' ) feet in width, then for
every two feet (2 ' ) in width in excess of fifty feet (50 ' ) the
required side yard shall be increased from a minimum of ten feet
(10 ' ) by one foot (1 ' ) up to a maximum of fifteen feet (15' ) .
However, in no case shall a structure over forty two inches (42")
in height intrude into the twenty foot (20 ' ) sight triangle
identified in Section 4-31-15 .C . 2 of this Chapter.
SECTION V. Subsections 4-31-7 .D. 9 .a, b and c . of Chapter
31, Zoning Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations) , of Ordinance
No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows :
4-31-7 .D.9 .a: Front Yard.
(1) Along streets existing as of September 1, 1995, the
minimum front yard setback shall not be less than twenty feet
(20 ' ) . A front yard setback of less than twenty feet (20 ' ) may be
allowed by the Development Services Division if the average front
7
11100, ORDINANCE No. 4549
setback of primary structures on lots abutting the side yards is
less than twenty feet (20 ' ) . In such case, the front yard setback
shall not be less than the average of the front setback of the
abutting primary structures; however, in no case shall a minimum
setback of less than twenty feet (20 ' ) be allowed for garages which
access from the front yard street (s) . Modifications to this
requirement due to site constraints or lot configuration may be
approved by the Development Services Division.
(2) Along streets created after September 1, 1995, a
minimum depth of fifteen feet (15 ' ) for the primary structure and a
minimum depth of twenty feet (20 ' ) for attached garages which
access from the front yard street (s) . The front yard setback of
the primary structure may be reduced to ten feet (10 ' ) if all
parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a
public right of way or alley.
(3) If the R-24 lot is adjacent to a lot Zoned RC, R-1,
R-5, R-8 or R-10, a front yard of less than fifteen feet (15 ' )
shall not be allowed.
4-31-7 .D.9 .b: Rear Yard:
(1) A minimum depth of fifteen feet (15 ' ) .
(2) If the R-24 lot abuts a lot Zoned RC, R-1, R-5,
R-8 or R-10, a twenty five foot (25 ' ) rear yard setback shall be
required of all attached dwelling units and a twenty foot (20 ' )
rear yard setback shall be required of all detached dwelling units .
4-31-7 .D.9 .c: Side Yards : _
(1) Interior Lots :
8
v
ORDINANCE NO. 4549 "w'
(i) Detached Single Family, a minimum depth of
five feet (5 ' ) on each side of the detached unit, except detached
garages may be located adjacent to the side yard lot line .
(ii) Townhouses on Individual Lots . A minimum
depth of five feet (5 ' ) for the unattached side of the structure.
Attached and detached garages may be located adjacent to the side
yard lot line .
(iii) All Other Primary Multi-Family
Structure and Accessory Structures . A minimum depth of five (5 ' )
feet .
(iv) Special Requirements : If the R-24 lot
abuts a lot Zoned RC, R-1, R-5, R-8 or R-10 a twenty five foot
(25 ' ) interior sideyard setback shall be required of all structures
containing three or more attached dwelling units on a single lot .
SECTION VI . Subsection 4-31-7 .D. 9 . c. (3) of Chapter 31,
Zoning Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations) , of Ordinance No.
4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington" is hereby deleted.
SECTION VII . Subsection 4-31-8 .D.4 . of Chapter 31, Zoning
Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations) , of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows :
4-31-8 .D.4 : Setbacks, Primary Structures and Attached
Accessory Structure :
a. Minimum front and rear yard shall be as follows :
9
4110
14110
ORDINANCE NO. 4 5 4 9
Density U C N I
Designation
FRONT
5 ' 20 ' 20 ' 20 '
REAR
5 ' 15 ' 15 ' 15 '
(1) Front and rear setbacks in the RM-U Zone may be
reduced to zero feet (0 ' ) by the reviewing official during the
site plan review process provided the applicant demonstrates that
the project will provide a compensatory amenity such as an
entryway courtyard, private balconies, or enhanced landscaping.
(2) If a structure located in the RM-U zone exceeds four
(4) stories in height, a fifteen foot (15 ' ) front setback from the
property line shall be required of all portions of the structure
which exceed four (4) stories . This requirement may be modified
by the reviewing official during the site plan review process to a
uniform 5 ' front setback for the entire structure provided that
the structure provides a textured or varied facade (e .g. multiple
setbacks, brickwork and/or ornamentation) and consideration of the
pedestrian environment (e .g. extra sidewalk width, canopies,
enhanced landscaping) .
b. Side Yards :
(1) Minimum setbacks for side yards are .ed on a
minimum of ten percent (100) of the lot width or five feet (5 ' )
whichever is greater. If ten percent (l00) of lot width is not
equal to a whole integer the percentage shall be rounded up to
determine the required setback as generally follows :
10
Nome
ORDINANCE NO. 4549
Lot Width Yard Setbacks
40 ' 5 '
50 ' 5 '
55 ' 6 '
60 ' 6 '
70 ' 7 '
75 ' 8 '
120+ ' 12 '
(2) The entire structure shall be setback an additional
one foot (1 ' ) for each story in excess of two (2) up to a maximum
cumulative setback of twenty feet (20 ' ) except as listed in the
Special Requirements section below (4-31-8 .D.7 .b) .
4-31-8 .D.7 .a: If an RM-U lot is adjacent to a lot Zoned RC,
R-1, R-5, R-8 or R-10, then a fifteen foot (15 ' ) landscaped strip
shall be required along the adjacent street frontage .
4-31-8 .D.7 .b: If the RM lot abuts a lot Zoned RC, R-1, R-5,
R-8 or R-10, a twenty five foot (25 ' ) side or rear setback shall be
<,long the abutting sides of the prope t
F . Special Design Standards
4-31-8 .F.1: RM Zoned properties abutting a less intense
residential zone may be required to incorporate special design
standards (e .g. , additional landscaping, larger setbacks, facade
11
Al
tillile ORDINANCE NO. 4549
articulation, solar access, fencing) through the site plan review
process .
SECTION VIII . This Ordinance shall be effective upon its
passage, approval, and thirty (30) days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 21st day of August 1995 .
())/1444; '
Marilyn etersen, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 21 t day of August 1995 .
Ea
C"-C Q�.
1 Clymer, Mayo
Approved to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: August 25, 1995
ORD.468 : 8/16/95 :as .
12
August 21. 1995 Renton City Council Minutes •- Page 326
CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 326 for
ordinance.)
ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption:
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution #3143 A resolution was read approving the West View final plat for 12 lots on 2.02
Plat: Final, West View, acres, located in the vicinity of Aberden Ave. NE and NE 12th St. (CSL
Aberdeen Ave NE/NE Development & Archer Development, Inc.; File No. FP-95-155). MOVED BY
12th St, FP-95-155 STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Resolution #3144 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
CAG: 95-, Agreement interlocal cooperative agreement with the City of Seattle for the emergency
with City of Seattle for purchase of water by the City of Seattle. MOVED BY SCHLITZER,
Emergency Sale of Water SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS
PRESENTED. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for first reading and advanced for
second and final reading:
Planning: Residential Zone An ordinance was read amending Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title IV
Minimum/Maximum (Building Regulations) of City Code relating to the minimum and maximum
Density Changes density requirements in the Resource Conservation (RC), Residential - 1 Unit
Per Acre (R-1), Residential - 8 Units Per Acre (R-8), Residential - 10 Units
Per Acre (R-10), Residential - 24 Units Per Acre (R-24), Residential, Multi-
family (RM) and Residential Manufactured Homes (RMH) zones. MOVED
BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED.
Ordinance #4548 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was
Planning: Residential Zone MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT
Minimum/Maximum THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES.
Density Changes CARRIED.
Planning: The Orchards An ordinance and summary ordinance were read establishing a residential
Demonstration Project, development demonstration project for parcels E, F and G in The Orchards
NE 4th St/Duvall Ave NE development, located in the vicinity of Duvall Avenue NE and NE 4th Street.
MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,
COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE
FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED.
Ordinance #4550 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance and
Planning: The Orchards summary ordinance, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY
Demonstration Project, KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AND
NE 4th St/Duvall Ave NE SUMMARY ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES.
CARRIED.
The following ordinance was presented for second reading and adoption:
Ordinance #4549 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title IV
Planning: Residential Zone (Building Regulations) of City Code relating to the setback provisions of the
Setback Changes Resource Conservation (RC), Residential - 1 Unit
Per Acre (R-1), Residential - 8 Units Per Acre (R-8), Residential - 10 Units
Per Acre (R-10), Residential - 24 Units Per Acre (R-24), and Residential,
Multi-family (RM) zones. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY
EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL
CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Aimmisommesir
' August 14, 1995 Renton City Council Minutes woe Page 314
2. A covenant be recorded against the property requiring connection to the
City sewer system:
a) if the septic system is failing or failed; or
b) if the property is sold or in any way changes ownership from both of
the two current owners; or
c) if the City makes a blanket policy requiring that all occupied
properties within either the City or the Aquifer Protection Area be
connected to a public sewer system, when available; or
d) by October 1, 2000, if the property has not been connected
previously.
Staff further recommended that a penalty equal to the City's monthly sewer
rate be assessed for failure to connect to the system when available. If,
however, the applicant can demonstrate that household income falls below the
poverty threshold, as defined by the City's senior citizen discount, the penalty
fee will be waived. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON,
COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Edwards presented a report
Committee recommending that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the
Transportation: Lake Wash agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
Blvd Bike/Pedestrian for construction of the Lake Washington Boulevard pedestrian and bicycle
Facility facility. The City's share of funding for the project is $557,664.00. The
Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be
presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED
BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED. (See page 315 for resolution.)
Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report recommending
Finance: Vouchers approval of Claims Vouchers #126141 - 126762; three wire transfers in the
total amount of $2,186,666.67; approval of Payroll Vouchers #136749 -
137163; and 413 direct deposits in the total amount of $1,142,629.45.
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,
COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Stredicke presented a report
Committee recommending concurrence with the staff recommendation that Council vacate
Planning: NE 4th/Union Ordinance No. 4278 and the corresponding site plan for the Ribera/Balko
Ave NE Site Plan (Bakke), project located at NE 4th and Union Ave NE (R-88-107), and release the
R-88-107 restrictive covenant on Lot 4. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY
KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning: Residential Zone planning and Development Committee Chair Stredicke presented a report
Setback Changes recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the
setback provisions of the Resource Conservation (RC), Residential - 1 Unit
Per Acre (R-1), Residential - 8 Units Per Acre (R-8), Residential - 10 Units
Per Acre (R-10), Residential - 24 Units Per Acre (R-24), and Mixed
Residential (RM) zones. The Committee further recommended that the
ordinance regarding this matter be placed on the agenda for first reading.
MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,
COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS AMENDED TO
ENSURE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND
FRONT YARD SETBACKS BY REQUIRING A MINIMUM 20-FOOT
YARD SETBACK. CARRIED. (See page 315 for ordinance.)
ORDINANCES AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
RESOLUTIONS
f
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEEDate g- V-9
COMMITTEE REPORT
(August 14, 1995)
Residential Setback Amendments
Referred (11/21/94)
The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council approve
the proposed amendments to the setbacks provisions of the RC, R-1, R-8, R-10, R-24,
and RM Zones. The Committee further recommends that the Ordinance be placed on
the agenda of August 14, 1995 for first reading.
Richard M. Stredicke, Chair
.//a-4)
Kathy K lker-Wheeler, Vice-Chair
andy Corman, Member
cc: Gregg Zimmerman
Mike Kattermann
4 ' v"
August 14, 1995 ..r Renton City Council Minutes `w/ Page 315
Resolution #3142 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
Transportation: Lake Wash interlocal cooperative agreement with the Washington State Department of
Blvd Bike/Pedestrian Transportation for construction of a pedestrian and bicycle facility to be
Facility, WSDOT located along Lake Washington Boulevard. MOVED BY EDWARDS,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS
PRESENTED. CARRIED.
The following ordinance and summary ordinance were presented for first
reading and referred to the Council meeting of 8/21/95 for second and final
reading:
Planning: Residential Zone An ordinance and summary ordinance were read amending Chapter 31,
Setback Changes Zoning Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations) of City Code relating to the
setback provisions of the Resource Conservation (RC), Residential - 1 Unit
Per Acre (R-1), Residential - 8 Units Per Acre (R-8), Residential - 10 Units
Per Acre (R-10), Residential - 24 Units Per Acre (R-24), and Mixed
Residential (RM) zones. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY
KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE AND
SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON
8/21/95. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS Councilman Corman suggested that the City air the Renton River Days parade
Community Event: River on the public access channel in future years when it becomes available.
Days Parade Cablecasting
Police: Drug-Free Zone Council President Schlitzer asked that the Administration look into posting
Signage "Drug-Free Zone" signs along major arterials in the City.
AUDIENCE COMMENT Sarah McDonald, PO Box 1825, Renton, 98059, commented on the concerns
Citizen Comment: expressed earlier regarding the Elliot Levee, saying that although dams appear
McDonald - Elliot Levee harmless they create a "rolling motion" which can be extremely dangerous.
Safety Concerns She suggested that people walk the banks of waterways before floating or
kayaking them, emphasizing that children need adult escorts at all times.
Citizen Comment: Webb - Sandy Webb, 430 Mill Ave. S., Renton, 98055, referred to earlier discussion
Audience Comment regarding live cablecasting of Council meetings, and concurred with the
Requirements/Cablecasting concern regarding privacy issues.
of Council Meetings
ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL
ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:53 p.m.
MARILY J TERSEN, CMC, City Clerk
Recorder: Brenda Fritsvold
8/14/95
#4110 *id
rr.►
•
/7. .
»` '''`
-%"ii'`i'?''`i"i ''i �5 ;;?'''%� �' �>i?.•i; '`>iEiiiii':'�'3`i�#� /�
PROPOSED NDM N TS TQ:RESIDENT ::SEI.B.
or: . ::. :::..:: : at iirOtbAhon,VIO:ig cAntAti ; .:;..; I e tt on:.;1fti n <: :«>
5-2 52
What are Setbacks?
Setback requirements indicate how close a building can be to a property line. In residential
. • areas, setbacks ensure that homes or apartments are not built too close together. Setbacks in
residential zones provide multiple benefits including reduced noise and increased privacy.
Each residential zone contains setback requirements listed as minimum front, rear and side
yards. Sometimes, extra distance is required if an intense use, like an apartment building,
shares property lines with land zoned for a less intense use, such as single family development.
What requirements are being changed and Why?
A number of revisions have been proposed to current setback standards in order to allow
greater flexibility while ensuring compatibility between different types of development. These
revisions come from the suggestions of Renton citizens, local developers and City officials.
These revisions have been proposed by the Planning and Development Committee of the City
• Council which is now requesting comment from the public about the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments would modify the current setback provisions in the following zones;
RC Resource Conservation
R-8 Residential - 8 units/acre
R-10 Residential - 10 units/acre
R-24 Residential - 24 units/acre
RM Residential Multi-Family.
The proposed amendments would modify the current setback provisions as generally described
below. These changes would apply to future development.
RC Zone - Front Setback
In the RC Zone, the amendments would reduce the required front yard from fifty feet to thirty
feet. (Decrease of twenty feet from current front yard requirement.)
R-8 Zone- Rear Setback
In the R-8 Zone, the amendments would reduce the required rear yard from twenty five feet to
. twenty feet. (Decrease of five feet from current rear yard requirement.)
R-8, R-10, R-24 Zones -Zero Foot Sideyard
Zero lot line provisions would be amended in the R-8, R-10 and R-24 zones to allow detached
structures (single family homes) to be built with no setback from the property line as long as
easements on adjacent properties are secured and a ten foot yard is provided between
structures. Zero lot line development would not be allowed without site plan review. (Codifies
Administrative Determination, no change from current policy.)
R-8, R-10, R-24 Zones -Front Setback along Existing Streets
In the R-8, R-10 and R-24 Zones, the front yard setback requirements would be modified so
that setbacks for new structures along existing streets will be similar to that of existing
development. (Variable based upon site specific conditions.)
R-10, R-24 and RM Zones - Special Rear Yard requirements when sharing lot lines with
Single Family zoned lots
In the R-10, R-24 and RM Zones, provisions would be added to require a twenty five foot rear
yard whenever an attached structure (multi-family) shares lot lines with an RC, R-1, R-5
(Proposed) or R-8 Zoned lot. In the R-24 and RMZones, this provision would also be
required when sharing lot lines with an R-10 Zone. (No change in the R-10. No change for
detached units in the R-24 Increase of ten feet in the RM and for attached units in the R-24
from current requirements.)
R-10, R-24 and RM Zones - Special Side Yard requirements when sharing lot lines with
Single Family zoned lots
In the R-10 and R-24 Zones, a twenty five foot sideyard would be required if three or more
attached units shared lot lines with an RC, R-1, R-5-(Proposed) or R-8 zoned lot. In the R-24
Zone, this provision would also be required for lots sharing lot lines with an R-10 zoned lot.
A twenty five foot sideyard would be required in the RM Zone for all structures sharing lot
lines with an RC, R-1,R-5 (Proposed) R-8 or R-10 zoned lot. (Increase of twenty feet in the
R-10 and R-24. Increase of ten feet in the RM Zone from current requirements.)
RM Zone-Front Setbacks in the Urban Center
In the RM Zone, front setbacks in the U suffix (Urban Center / Downtown Center) would be
increased from zero feet to five feet, however, they could be reduced to zero through the site
plan review process if a compensatory amenity is provided. (Increase of five feet or no change
from current provisions.)
RM Zone - Special Front Setbacks for Tall Buildings in the Urban Center
In the RM Zoned portions of the Urban Center (same as Downtown Center), new provisions
would require buildings in excess of four stories to setback the front portions of the structure
over four stories by fifteen feet or through the site plan review process a uniform setback of
five feet would be allowed. (Increase of five to fifteen feet from current standards.)
RM Zone- Side yard Setbacks
In the RM Zone, sideyard requirements would be reduced from 20% of the lot width to a
general requirement of 10% of lot width or five feet whichever is greater. An additional
setback of one foot would be required for each story in excess of two. In no case, however,
would a setback greater than twenty feet be required. (Decrease or increase dependent upon lot
width and structure height.)
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
June 5, 1995 Council Chambers
Monday, 7:30 p.m. Municipal Building
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting
of the Renton City Council to order.
ROLL CALL OF TIMOTHY SCHLITZER, Council President; RANDY CORMAN; BOB
COUNCILMEMBERS EDWARDS; TONI NELSON; KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER; RICHARD
STREDICKE; JESSE TANNER.
CITY STAFF IN EARL CLYMER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Executive Assistant to the
ATTENDANCE Mayor; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BRENDA FRITSVOLD,
Deputy City Clerk; MICHAEL KATTERMANN, Planning & Technical
Services Director; SAM STAR, Administrative Analyst; NEIL WATTS, Plan
Review Supervisor; JIM GRAY, Assistant Fire Marshall; COMMANDER
DENNIS GERBER, Police Department.
APPROVAL OF MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL
COUNCIL MINUTES APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 22, 1995, AS PRESENTED.
CARRIED.
SPECIAL Joe Scanlon, Project Engineer for the WSDOT I-405 S-Curve Project, gave a
PRESENTATION brief update on the status of the project, which is nearly complete.
WSDOT: I-405 S-Curve Construction of the detention pond is finished, save cleaning and testing, and
Project the vicinity of Mill Ave., Renton Ave. and Houser Way will receive final
curb, gutter and sidewalk work later this week. NE 3rd St. is nearly finished,
with only clean-up and erosion control work remaining. Work on the Narco
road and pedestrian trail is underway and should be completed in about three
weeks. Mr. Scanlon concluded that WSDOT is awaiting a recommendation
from City staff regarding the resolution of sight distance concerns at the
Renton Ave. intersection.
Councilman Stredicke inquired about the availability of landscaping plans for
the project, noting that Council had requested these on May 1st. Although he
was unsure when the plans would be ready, Mr. Scanlon confirmed that the
bids for this portion of the project will be advertised later this year.
PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published
Planning: Residential in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened the public
Setback Changes hearing to consider proposed revisions to residential setbacks.
Mike Kattermann, Planning & Technical Services Director, explained that
residential setbacks reduce noise, enhance privacy and maintain a separation
from the street and between buildings. Several changes are proposed, both to
achieve greater flexibility and to ensure compatibility between uses. Mr.
Kattermann clarified that adjacent uses are those across a street or a right-of-
way, while abutting uses share a common property line. He reviewed the
proposed setback changes for the following zones:
Resource Conservation (RC): Reduce front yard setback from 50 feet to
30 feet.
Residential/Up to 8 Units/Acre (R-8): Reduce rear yard setback from 25
feet to 20 feet. Allow zero foot side yard if easements on adjacent properties
*to
June 5, 1995 en to City Council Minutes Paae 224
are secured and ten feet is provided between structures. Modify front yard
setbacks so new structure setbacks along existing streets are similar to those of
existing development.
Residential/Up to 10 Units/Acre (R-10): Allow zero foot side yard (for
detached structures only) if easements on adjacent properties are secured and
ten feet is provided between structures. Modify front yard setbacks so new
structure setbacks along existing streets are similar to those of existing
development. Require a 25-foot rear yard setback whenever a multi-family
structure abuts an RC, R-1, R-5 or R-8 property. Require a 25-foot side
yard if three or more attached units abut an RC, R-1, R-5 or R-8 property.
Residential/Up to 24 Units/Acre (R-24): Allow zero foot side yard (for
detached structures only) if easements on adjacent properties are secured and
ten feet is provided between structures. Modify front yard setbacks so new
structure setbacks along existing streets are similar to those of existing
development. Require a 25-foot rear yard setback whenever a multi-family
structure abuts an RC, R-1, R-5, R-8 or R-10 property. Require a 25-foot
G side yard if three or more attached units abut an RC, R-1, R-5, R-8 or R-10
property.
Residential Multi-Family (RM): Require a 25-foot rear yard setback
whenever a multi-family structure abuts an RC, R-1, R-5, R-8 or R-10
property. Require a 25-foot side yard for all structures abutting an RC, R-1,
R-5, R-8 or R-10 property. Reduce side yard setback requirements from
20% of lot width to a general requirement of 10% of lot width or five feet,
whichever is greater (dependent upon lot width and structure height). In the
U-Suffix Urban Center, increase front and rear yard setbacks from zero to
five feet and add provisions requiring buildings over four stories to set back
the front portion by five to 15 feet, depending on site plan review.
Responding to Councilman Tanner, Mr. Kattermann said the easement to be
granted in association with the zero lot line provision is specific and would
allow access for general maintenance purposes only.
Councilman Corman was concerned that the proposed changes to front yard
setbacks along existing streets might prevent someone from improving their
home should they want to redesign the front of an older structure. He
suggested that such improvements be allowed if the existing front yard
setback is generous.
In response to Councilman Edwards, City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren agreed
that any changes Council adopts relating to setback requirements should be
effective prior to July 22, 1995, when Initiative 164 (regarding property
takings) takes effect.
Audience comment was invited.
Versie Vaupel, P.O. Box 755, Renton, 98057, objected to the proposal to allow
zero lot lines in the R-8 zone, and particularly in infill development. Saying
that zero lot lines can cause problems between neighbors, she gave examples
of instances in which she had seen or experienced the negative effects of zero
lot lines.
Ralph Evans, 3306 NE 11 th Pl., Renton, 98056, questioned whether the
proposed changes address cases where a single family rear yard abuts a multi-
family use. He too was concerned about zero lot lines, saying that, in certain
situations, these could be construed as taking property from one owner and
%iv ~
June 5. 1995 .nton City Council Minutes r..= Page 225
giving it to another. He envisioned many potential problems with zero lot
lines, and felt that the suggested changes did not adequately address these.
In response to Mr. Evans' comment on cases in which single family and multi-
family uses share a property line, Mr. Kattermann said whenever an R-24
zoned property (multi-family) abuts an R-10 or less dense property, a 25-foot
side yard setback is required.
Responding to Council questions on zero lot lines, Mr. Kattermann explained
that these are intended to provide more usable property for home owners. As
an example, a house could be built on one side of a narrow lot instead of
being centered with little space left on either side. Mr. Kattermann added
that the proposed zero lot line easement would not transfer ownership, but
only grant access for maintenance reasons. The easement would run with the
property and thus transfer to any subsequent owner.
In response to Councilman Corman, Mr. Kattermann said while zero lot lines
would be allowed in infill development under certain conditions, these are
most often applied in new subdivisions.
Councilmen Corman and Tanner expressed concern that zero lot lines could
provoke arguments between neighbors, particularly for infill development.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE,
SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL REFER
THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SETBACK CHANGES BACK TO THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY WITH THE INTENT TO ELIMINATE THE ZERO LOT LINE
PROVISIONS. CARRIED.
AUDIENCE COMMENT Versie Vaupel, P.O. Box 755, Renton, 98057, expressed thanks for the recent
Citizen Comment: Vaupel replacement of the sidewalk fronting City Hall. On another subject, Mrs.
- City Hall Front Vaupel announced she is collecting signatures opposing Initiative 164.
Sidewalk; I-164
Opposition
Citizen Comment: Siemion Margaret Siemion, 3416 SE 6th, Renton, 98058, said while she appreciated
- Maple Valley Hwy plans to install a left-turn lane on SR-169 at Maplewood Avenue, she
Improvements continued to predict traffic problems at this intersection. She was
disappointed that a pedestrian crossing was rejected for Monroe Avenue, and
questioned what the total cost of diverting pedestrians away from Maplewood
Avenue will be. Ms. Siemion encouraged Council to examine this situation
and act to ensure pedestrian and traffic safety at this intersection.
MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL
ADVANCE TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS
SUBJECT. CARRIED.
Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Edwards presented a report
Committee regarding the Maple Valley Highway signal. Due to circumstances brought
Transportation: Maple about by increased traffic on the Maple Valley Highway and the addition of
Valley Hwy the park and trail attractions, the City recognizes the community's concern for
Improvements, WSDOT the safety of children crossing the highway. Also noted is the grocery store
owner's interest for improved access onto the highway. The Committee
therefore recommended that Council request the Administration to:
ar►
'Nose Nava'
Yk
(n = = m- m- o — a) CDo, o - a) (p a) m in �•-gyp cn
xi ca C 0 C - - 7 3
cr 'oa ' - a0 m
- m'' . )
�,, o C � °.a o
�ilir ��c Z ®�?i t�`Oc� o o y m m < m m
1
it
0 Nia. or'm% m CD -a 0 z cii, (D C' 7 c C CD D
I'2..(9) .0 a .•Z m m 5•o co o m -^ c m
1a���., ..g',...,* �J? 3 • •• * m- a) 0- o' a chi r C_
�h N� �` `� m -I
a � � m a). o 3 'a (CI 'c Q
Z • � wa � 7 °< � .. o o '11
Q\ \ al
`< iU O.`G 6 j d cp O 7 CCD -D Z 6
co - =CD 0I\ o n ►-. o �• o , _ a � n Cm m r_
o Qo . P m ►— � C w � ' Cl) co G (0 n
c 7C -, 0_ m (n a) co '^
Cf) CD
cr
� o � �, cn
�� wo � � 0
o - Z (n0 mn5- O o
w co 3 c 3
_s CD (D � < � < a o
Cl) cn < < w =
c Z o * z �
co 3 OFm w m o
o m , a (o 3c, cotA
(n (n 7 m x' w S
C
.p C O „, R.a D �' s. O (7, W Z
o(' 3`°'' cD g3..= °00
d, cv o mn
< 'V m 5.r.z j m ,,cot o.J (2Z• *
m K•CT) 7 O C p 1��N P -,-< r',•:'
(D4 y T(' Oa (9 axO�(7. 0 3.
gam.
c� � amfDft im �S mew55 �x.
a -g ? ma°m
h
*400
CITY OF RENTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 5th day of June,
1995, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the second floor Council
Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, 98055, to consider
the following:
Proposed changes to residential setbacks.
All interested parties are invited to attend and present written and/or oral comments.
Interpretive services and translation services are available upon request. For further information,
call the City Clerk's office at 235-2501 (TDD 277-4404).
4Pi.,j/ -, ,,,,„.... „„ i
Marilyn J. Il en, City Clerk
Published: Valley Daily News
May 24, 1995
Acct. #50640
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
ate D s//S/9S-
COMMITTEE REPORT
MAY 15, 1995
Amendments to the Zoning Code for Residential Setbacks
Referred (11/21/94)
The Planning and Development Committee requests that the City Council set a public
hearing on the proposed changes to residential setbacks on June 5th, 1995.
C - —
Richard Stredicke, Chair
.11
Kathy olker-Wheeler, Vice-Chair
-
Randy Corman, Member
H:\P&TS\PLN\P&DC\RESSET\rl
CITY OF RENTON
CITY OF RENTON FEB1 5 1995
PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS
hEe`ivE®
MEMORANDUM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: February 14, 1995
TO: Richard Stredicke, Chair
Planning & Development Committee
VIA: Mayor Earl Clyme;
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator(]
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
STAFF CONTACT: Allan Johnson (277-6187)
SUBJECT: PROPOSALS FOR UNRESOLVED SETBACK ISSUES
During the previous sessions of the Planning and Development Committee, several issues
regarding building setbacks were identified for further exploration. These issues included:
1) Pedestrian Linkages
2) Setbacks of Tall Buildings in. the Downtown
3) Setbacks of Blank Facades
4) Maximum Setbacks in the D'.:wntown
5) Maximum Setbacks in Other Commercial Areas
The following tables highlight those areas of concern and indicate suggested resolution to
these remaining issues. The current provisions are indicated for comparison.
We will discuss these proposals at the Planning and Development Committee meeting on
Wed., March 1, 1995. Please call Allan Johnson at ext. 6187 with any questions.
PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES
CURRENT PROVISIONS PROPOSAL
No current pedestrian linkages Require a dedicated pedestrian linkage
provisions. from the primary entrance of a structure
to the primary street which minimizes
conflict with vehicle circulation and
promotes pedestrian safety.
Allow exceptions if pedestrian safety
would be unduly compromised or if the
applicant can demonstrate that
pedestrian access would be minimal.
r
February 14, 1995 `"'
Page 2
TALL BUILDINGS IN THE DOWNTOWN
CURRENT PROVISIONS PROPOSAL
Require 10' setback for each story over Require one 15' setback for portions of
4 stories structures over 4 stories. This setback
may be reduced through Site Plan if the
applicant can demonstrate:
*Textured or Varied Facade
-- of which more than 1 5% must be
translucent (i.e, window) and,
*Consideration-of the Pedestrian
Environment
-- including 5' of additional sidewalk and
sidewalk canopies, as well as, mitigation
of extensive shadow coverage on the
adjacent sidewalk. (Or alternate
mitigation measures identified through
Site Plan.)
BLANK FACADES
CURRENT PROVISIONS PROPOSAL
No current blank facade provisions. Blank facades shall be defined as
facades which are less than 1 5%
translucent over a distance of 30 feet or
greater.
In the Downtown, blank facades shall be
mitigated through the Site Plan process.
The utilization of blank facades shall be
minimized.
In other Commercial Areas, blank
facades shall be setback a minimum 10
feet from street fronts with a mitigating
landscaped strip. This provision may be
adjusted through Site Plan if alternate
mitigation measures are identified.
(Such as: Textured or Varied Facade,
Murals, Alternate landscaping i.e. vines,
etc.)
44iire
Nase
,
February 14, 1995
Page 3
MAXIMUM SETBACKS IN THE DOWNTOWN
CURRENT PROVISIONS PROPOSAL
Maximum setback of 15' for buildings of Within the Downtown, the front facade
less than 25' in height and 25' for those of a buildings shall be situated
over 25' in height.
1) up to the primary street
2) or as otherwise determined through
Site Plan.
Exceptions
1) small not be required of structures of
less than 4,000 square feet
2) the building may be setback to
accommodate landscaping or pedestrian
amenities along the streetfront provided
that the building is situated up to the
lanascaped area or pedestrian amenity.
3) shall not be required if parking and
access provisions could not be satisfied.
4) shall not be required of existing
structures or improvements/additions to
existing structures.
5) may be waived or adjusted for
buildings exceeding 4 stories in height
4111111M.
4411110
*0110°
February 14, 1995
Page 4
MAXIMUM SETBACKS IN OTHER COMMERCIAL AREAS
CURRENT PROVISIONS PROPOSAL
Generally a 15' maximum setbacks for Within other commercial areas, building
buildings of less than 25' in height. shall be situated so that
1) the average setback of the
structure(s) from the primary street shall
not exceed one half of the lot depth
2) or one half of the lot coverage of the
structure(s) shall be located on the front
half of the lot.
3) or as otherwise determined through
the Site Plan process.
Exceptions
1) shall not be required of structures of
less than 4,000 square feet
2) shall not be required if these
provisions would cause the rear facade
of the primary structure to be located
along any street front.
3) shall not be required if the provisions
would create pedestrian barriers between
neighboring uses.
4) shall not be required if joint use
parking would be precluded or if parking
and access provisions could not be
satisfied.
5) shall not be required of existing
structures or improvements/additions to
existing structures.
NINO
NIIle
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM zir._A,4V6 CialACIL
DATE: December 19, 1994
TO: City Council
VIA: fl Mayor Clymer
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman 6
STAFF CONTACT: Allan Johnson (277-6187)
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION GUIDE ON AMENDMENTS TO SETBACK
STANDARDS
The 'Issue Paper on Amendments to Setback Standards' identified proposals from
the Staff and the Planning Commission regarding numerous setback issues.
Discussions with the Planning and Development Committee on this Issue Paper
have identified some points of consensus as well as areas needing further
discussion.
In order to help finalize the discussion on setback issues, this discussion guide has
been prepared to summarize points of consensus as well as offer refined proposals
resulting from additional research and discussion.
This paper is organized in a similar fashion as the Issue Paper. It focuses on each
Zone individually and highlights the areas where change is being considered. Each
item for consideration is numbered sequentially for easier reference and a summary
of proposals is presented for reference.
ITEM #.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
PROPOSAL:
Following each item summary is a proposal identifying a suggested resolution to
each particular setback issue.
*laief 4.0
i
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
•
ITEM 1 .
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
FRONT 5Q' 30' •
15: "
front garage/park 501 30 2Q'
w/ rear parking 50' • 30'
•
* (or average of adjacent setbacks) (no more than 20')
PROPOSAL:
1. Require a 30' front setback.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
ITEM 2.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE 25' 25' 10%.of:lot width
•
(Min. 57
along street 50' 50' 15'
PROPOSAL:
1. Maintain current side setbacks.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 2
r
L
1
DECISION GUIDE FOR .,
SETBACKS IN THE
S L.(LOW DENSITY SINGLE F
ITEM 3.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
FRONT 30' 30' 15' *
front garage/park 30' 30' 20'
w/ rear parking 30' 30' 70 *
* (or average of adjacent setbacks)(no more than 20'1
PROPOSAL:
1. Revise front setbacks similar to those in the SF Zone to allow higher densities.
2. Do not require more than a 20' front setback.
(Add consistent provision within SF, MR and PNR Zones)
ITEM 4.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE 15' 15' 10% of lot wid#h
(min 51. .
along street 20' 20' 15
PROPOSAL:
1. Concur with the Staff recommendation to reduce side yard setbacks to allow higher
densities.
2. Set a maximum of 15' side yard.
December 19, 1994 3
r
l
DECISION GUIDE FOR �..
SETBACKS IN THE
....................................... ............................................ ...........................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ITEM 5.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
Zero sideyard Yes On interior lot lines Yes except infll
PROPOSAL:
1. Allow zero lot line development within interior lot lines of short plats and subdivisions
through the Site Plan review process.
2. Do not allow zero lot line for single parcel infill development.
(Too difficult to implement)
ITEM 6.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
,'REAR •25' 20' 20'
•
PROPOSAL:
1. Reduce rear setbacks to 20'.
•
December 19, 1994 4
4riv 410
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
MIX D RES'ID IA ZI`
ITEM 7i.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
•Zero sideyard > • Yes On'interior lot•lines ' Yes except infill
PROPOSAL: (SAME AS SF Zone PROPOSAL)
1. Allow zero lot line development within interior lot lines of short plats and subdivisions
through the Site Plan review process.
2. Do not allow zero lot line for single parcel infill development.
(Too difficult to implement)
ITEM 8.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
REAR 25' 20' 20,
PROPOSAL: (SAME AS SF Zone PROPOSAL)
1. Reduce rear setbacks to 20'.
December 19, 1994 5
L
100
DECISION GUIDE FOR .,.,
SETBACKS IN THE
ITEM 9.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
Zero sideyard Yes On interior lot lines Yes except infill
PROPOSAL: (SAME AS SF Zone PROPOSAL)
1. Allow zero lot line development within interior lot lines of short plats and subdivisions
through the Site Plan review process.
2. Do not allow zero lot line for single parcel infill development.
(Too difficult to implement)
ITEM 10.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
REAR 25' 15' 75'
abut SF, MR„SFL 25' 25' 20'
PROPOSAL:
1. Reduce standard rear setback to15'.
2. Require a minimum 20' building setback when abutting SF, MR, SFL or RC Zones with a
10' minimum landscaping strip and a 6' solid fence.
• Allow waivers from the 6' solid fence through the Site Plan process if additional
buffering is provided.
December 19, 1994 • 6
*of
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
'
:. E Mlr::rU<> 11�UL�C1 <FAI11I1�.�( ... 'URBAN...0 CENTER).
ITEM_11 .
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE 20% 10% lot width 10% lot width
(+2%/ea, story) (+2%/ea story)
min. 5', max. 20' min 5', no max.
along street 20' 15' 15'
Zero sideyard Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
PROPOSAL:
1. Concur with Planning Commission recommendation.
ITEM 12.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
. . ....................... .......
REAR 15' 15' 15'
Abut SF,MR,SFL 15' 25' 20'
PROPOSAL:
1. Maintain standard rear setback..
2. Require a minimum 20' building setback when abutting SF, MR, SFL or RC Zones with a
10' minimum landscaping strip and a 6' solid fence.
• Allow waivers from the 6' solid fence through the Site Plan process if additional
buffering is provided.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 7
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1111111111111111.11
G Mil[Uttl(< .NE + HB:CRI- . . D...CV "E . .. . . E
ITEM 13.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
FRONT 20' • 20' • 15'
PROPOSAL:
1. Maintain current standard front setback.
ITEM 14.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE ' 20% 10%lot width 10%.lot width
•(+2%/ea. f/. +2) (+I2%/ea fl +2)
min.»'5%max. 20' min
•
along street 20' 15' 15'
Zero sideyard Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed;
PROPOSAL: (SAME AS MF-U Zone PROPOSAL)
1. Concur with Planning Commission Recommendation.
December 19, 1994 8
%Me
`1111.
DECISION GUIDE FOR ..r
SETBACKS IN THE
Llll=.....ItC1N
GOIVIMUNITY :&.NEI+ HB RFIO D..OENTE E > > >'<
ITEM 15.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
REAR 15' 15' 1.5'
abut SF,MR,SFL 15' 25' 20'
PROPOSAL: (SAME AS MF-U Zone PROPOSAL)
1. Maintain a standard 15' rear setback.
2. Require a minimum 20' building setback when abutting SF, MR, SFL or RC Zones with a
10' minimum landscaping strip and a 6' solid fence.
• Allow waivers from the 6' solid fence through the Site Plan process if additional
buffering is provided.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 9
*r11r'
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
ITEM 16.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MINIMUM FRONT
below 25' 0' 0' 0'
over 25' 15' 0' Q
(Portions over 10' for each floor 15' determined through
4 stories) above 4 stories site plan
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Minimum Street Setback".
2. Maintain a standard 0' minimum setback, however, require 10' of landscaping in front of
blank facades at pedestrian level. Allow reductions to 0' through the Site Plan process
if the blank facade is mitigated.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
3. Require a 15' stepback for portions of structures over 4 stories. Add a provision which
allows for reduction in the building stepback through the Site Plan process providing the
project can demonstrate compliance with the following criteria:
• Provides a Textured or Varied Facade and Pedestrian Streetfront
-- limited blank facades at street level.
• Consideration of Bulk and Scale as well as Shadows
-- allow summer light to the adjacent sidewalk.
• Provides Pedestrian Amenities
--such as canopies, sidewalk cafes, display areas, plazas or arcades.
4. When adjacent to a residential zone, require a 10' landscaping strip and 6' solid fence to
obscure any outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work
areas.
• Allow reductions through Site Plan to encroach on the 10' of landscaping if special
buffering conditions are identified through the Site Plan review process.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 10
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
ITEM 1 L
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MAXIMUM FRONT
below 25' 15' 0' 0.'
over 25' 25' 0'
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Maximum Street Setback".
2. Reduce maximum setbacks to 0'. Allow for additional setbacks through the Site Plan
process provided the project can satisfy the following criteria
• Setbacks are needed to allow reasonable parking, access and site design.
(assumed for gas stations, mini marts and drive through)
• Additional Setbacks would accommodate Landscaped Areas.
• Additional Setbacks would accommodate Pedestrian Amenities.
(wider sidewalks, sidewalk cafes, plazas, display or sales areas)
• Dedicated and identifiable Pedestrian Connections will be provided from the street to the
primary structure and between adjacent uses where appropriate and feasible.
• Additional Setbacks are needed to prevent blank facades along the street or barriers
between adjacent uses.
• Shall not be required of Existing Structures, however, compensating Pedestrian
Connections will be required.
3. Clarify that Maximum Setbacks apply to the front facade of the primary or most
prominent structure. Where the lot abuts more than one street, the maximum setback
shall be applied from the primary or most prominent street.
December 19, 1994 11
AIM&
%1110 '4100#
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
ER
ITEM 18.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE./ REAR
abutting SF 15' 20'• 20
adjacent SF- 15' 20' • 15'
abut/ adjct. MF 15' • 20' 15'
(screening required)
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Interior Setback".
2. When abutting (sharing property boundaries with) a Residential Zone, require a 20'
building setback and a 10' landscaped strip with a 6' solid fence.
• Allow reductions in the building setback to 10' and waiver of the solid fence through the
Site Plan process if additional buffering is provided, however, do not allow waiver of the
solid fence for any outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or
work areas.
• When adjacent (across the street) from a Residential Zone, use standard front setbacks,
however, require screening of outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair,
maintenance or work areas.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 12
400
DECISION GUIDE FOR w....
SETBACKS IN THE
::::::::
f ::
CC COMMERCIAL
ITEM 19.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MINIMUM FRONT
below 25' 0' 0' 0'
over 25' 15' 0' 0'
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Minimum Street Setback".
2. Reduce minimum setback to 0' for buildings over 25'. Require 10' of landscaping of
blank facades at pedestrian level, however, allow reductions to 0' through the Site Plan
process if the blank facade is mitigated.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
3. When adjacent to a residential zone, require a 10' landscaping strip and 6' solid fence to
obscure any outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work
areas.
• Do not allow reductions through Site Plan to encroach on the 10' of landscaping. For
existing uses which encroach on the 10' of landscaping require special buffering
conditions through the Site Plan review process.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 13
41.11111111111111.111.
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
CC CCONVE:NIEN'CE 3MIVIER CIA L 2C NE
ITEM 20.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MAXIMUM FRONT
below 25' 15' 0' 0'
over 25' NA 0' 0'
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Maximum Street Setback".
2. Reduce the maximum setback to 0' Allow for additional setbacks through the Site Plan
process provided the project can satisfy the following criteria
• Setbacks are needed to allow reasonable parking and access.
(assumed for drive through, gas stations, mini marts)
• Additional Setbacks would accommodate Landscaped Areas.
• Additional Setbacks would accommodate Pedestrian Amenities.
(wider sidewalks, sidewalk cafes, plazas, display or sales areas)
• Shall not be required of Existing Structures.
3. Clarify that Maximum Setbacks apply to the front facade of the primary or most
prominent structure. Where the lot abuts more than one street, the maximum setback
shall be applied from the primary or most prominent street.
December 19, 1994 14
*to *airo
, 1
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
ITEM 21 .
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE / REAR
abutting SF 15' 20' * 20'
adjacent SF 15' 20' 15'
abut/adjct.'MF 15' 20' 15'
* (screening required)
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Interior Setback".
2. When abutting (sharing property boundaries with) a Residential Zone, require a 20'
building setback and a 10' landscaped strip with a 6' solid fence.
• Allow reductions in the building setback to 10' and waiver of the solid fence through the
Site Plan process if additional buffering is provided, however, do not allow waiver of the
solid fence for any outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or
work areas.
• When adjacent (across the street) from a Residential Zone, use standard front setbacks,
however, require screening of outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair,
maintenance or work areas.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 15
i
II
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
ITEM 22. •
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MINIMUM FRONT
below 25' 0' 10' 5'
over'25' 15' 10'
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Minimum Street Setback".
2. Require a 10' minimum setback regardless of height. Allow a reduction to 0' through
Site Plan if the project provides a Pedestrian Facade.
3. When adjacent to a residential zone, require a 6' solid fence to obscure any outdoor or
semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas. Do not allow
reductions through Site Plan to encroach on the 10' of landscaping.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 16
a
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
A. ER M ITEM 23.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MAXIMUM FRONT
below 25' 15' • 15' NA
over 25' NA NA NA
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Maximum Street Setback".
2. Require a standard 15' maximum setback regardless of height.
3. Allow exceptions to the Maximum Setbacks through the Site Plan review process for
project which can satisfy the following criteria
• Setbacks are needed to allow reasonable parking, access and site design.
(assumed for gas stations, mini marts and drive through)
• Additional Setbacks would accommodate Landscaped Areas.
• Additional Setbacks would accommodate Pedestrian Amenities.
(wider sidewalks, sidewalk cafes, plazas, display or sales areas)
• Dedicated and identifiable Pedestrian Connections will be provided from the street to the
primary structure and between adjacent uses where appropriate and feasible.
• Additional Setbacks are needed to prevent blank facades along the street or barriers
between adjacent uses.
• Shall not be required of Existing Structures, however, compensating Pedestrian
Connections will be required.
4. Clarify that Maximum Setbacks apply to the front facade of the primary or most
prominent structure. Where the lot abuts more than one street, the maximum setback
shall be applied from the primary or most prominent street.
December 19, 1994 17
� i
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
M ER C1
ITEM 24.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE / REAR
abutting SF 15' 20' * ' 20'
adjacent SF 15' 20' 15'
abut/adjct. MF 15' 20' 15'
* (screening required)
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Interior Setback".
2. When abutting (sharing property boundaries with) a Residential Zone, require a 20'
building setback and a 10' landscaped strip with a 6' solid fence.
• Allow reductions in the building setback to 10' and waiver of the solid fence through the
Site Plan process if additional buffering is provided, however, do not allow waiver of the
solid fence for any outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or
work areas.
• When adjacent (across the street) from a Residential Zone, use standard front setbacks,
however, require screening of outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair,
maintenance or work areas.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 18
4'
11009
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
.................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................
CN CB (COIVIMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER) ZONE
. ...... .. . ........ . ............... .
.. ......... ............ . ...................
ITEM 25.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MINIMUM FRONT
below 25' 0' 10' 5'
over 25' 15' 10' : 15'
PROPOSAL: (SAME AS CA Zone PROPOSAL)
1. Rename as "Minimum Street Setback".
2. Require a standard 10' minimum setback regardless of height. Allow a reduction to 0'
through Site Plan if the project provides a Pedestrian Facade.
3. When adjacent to a residential zone, require a 6' solid fence to obscure any outdoor or
semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas. Do not allow
reductions through Site Plan to encroach on the 10' of landscaping.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 19
411=b,
1010 4110
s.
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
CN I CB (CONIIVIUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.) ZONES>< `
ITEM 26.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MAXIMUM FRONT
below 25' 15' 15' NA
over 25' NA NA NA
PROPOSAL: (SAME AS CA Zone PROPOSAL)
1. Rename as "Maximum Street Setback".
2. Require a standard 15' maximum setback regardless of height.
3. Allow exceptions to the Maximum Setbacks through the Site Plan review process for
project which can satisfy the following criteria
• Setbacks are needed to allow reasonable parking, access and site design.
(assumed for gas stations, mini marts and drive through)
• Additional Setbacks would accommodate Landscaped Areas.
• Additional Setbacks would accommodate Pedestrian Amenities.
(wider sidewalks, sidewalk cafes, plazas, display or sales areas)
• Dedicated and identifiable Pedestrian Connections will be provided from the street to the
primary structure and between adjacent uses where appropriate and feasible.
• Additional Setbacks are needed to prevent blank facades along the street or barriers
between adjacent uses.
• Shall not be required of Existing Structures, however, compensating Pedestrian
Connections will be required.
4. Clarify that Maximum Setbacks apply to the front facade of the primary or most
prominent structure. Where the lot abuts more than one street, the maximum setback
shall be applied from the primary or most prominent street.
December 19, 1994 20
1400 4110
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
ITY I :D ITEM 27.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE /REAR
abutting SF 15' 20' * 20'
adjacent SF 15' 20' 15'
abut/adjct. MF 15' 20' 15'
* (screening required)
PROPOSAL: (SAME AS CA Zone PROPOSAL)
1. Rename as "Interior Setback".
2. When abutting (sharing property boundaries with) a Residential Zone, require a 20'
building setback and a 10' landscaped strip with a 6' solid fence.
• Allow reductions in the building setback to 10' and waiver of the solid fence through the
Site Plan process if additional buffering is provided, however, do not allow waiver of the
solid fence for any outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or
work areas.
• When adjacent (across the street) from a Residential Zone, use standard front setbacks,
however, require screening of outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair,
maintenance or work areas.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 21
•� i
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
ITEM 28.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MINIMUM FRONT
below 25' 15' 1 5' 15'.
• 25' to 80'•` 20' 20' 1:5'
over 80' 30' 30' 15'
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Minimum Street Setback".
2. Maintain current minimum setbacks, however, allow for a reduction to 0' for buildings
under 4 stories through Site Plan if the project provides a Pedestrian Facade.
3. When adjacent to a residential zone, require a 6' solid fence to obscure any outdoor or
semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas. Do not allow
reductions through Site Plan to encroach on the 10' of landscaping.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 22
ti11 O a,
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
CO (OFFICE
ITEM 29.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
MAXIMUM FRONT
below 25' 30' 30' NA
25' to 80 40' 40' NA
over 80' 50' 50' NA
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Maximum Street Setback".
2. Maintain current maximum setbacks
3. Allow exceptions to the Maximum Setbacks through the Site Plan review process for
project which can satisfy the following criteria
• Setbacks are needed to allow reasonable parking, access and site design.
(assumed for gas stations, mini marts and drive through)
• Additional Setbacks would accommodate Landscaped Areas.
• Dedicated and identifiable Pedestrian Connections will be provided from the street to the
primary structure and between adjacent uses where appropriate and feasible.
• Shall not be required of Existing Structures, however, compensating Pedestrian
Connections will be required.
4. Clarify that Maximum Setbacks apply to the front facade of the primary or most
prominent structure. Where the lot abuts more than one street, the maximum setback
shall be applied from the primary or most prominent street.
December 19, 1994 23
DECISION GUIDE FOR
�.. SETBACKS IN THE
ITEM 30. •
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE / REAR'
abutting SF 15' 20' * ' 20'
adjacent SF 15' 20' 15'
abut/adjct.>MF 15' 20' 15'
• (screening required)
PROPOSAL: (SAME AS CA Zone PROPOSAL)
1. Rename as "Interior Setback".
2. When abutting (sharing property boundaries with) a Residential Zone, require a 20'
building setback and a 10' landscaped strip with a 6' solid fence.
• Allow reductions in the building setback to 10' and waiver of the solid fence through the
Site Plan process if additional buffering is provided, however, do not allow waiver of the
solid fence for any outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or
work areas.
• When adjacent (across the street) from a Residential Zone, use standard front setbacks,
however, require screening of outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair,
maintenance or work areas.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 24
.r ' y
411111V
VP
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
IA•L•• • »<>••••
ITEM 31 .
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
SIDE / REAR '
abutting SF 20' 20' " 20'
adjacent SF 20' 20' 2:0'
abutting MF 20' 20' 20'
adjct. MF 20 20'
20'
abutting Comm. 20' 20' • 20'
adjacent Comm. 20' 20' 20'
(screening required)
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Interior Setback".
2. When abutting (sharing property boundaries with) a Residential Zone, require a 20'
building setback and a 10' landscaped strip with a 6' solid fence.
• Allow waiver of the solid fence through the Site Plan process if additional buffering is
provided, however, do not allow waiver of the solid fence for any outdoor or semi-
exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas.
• When adjacent (across the street) from a Residential Zone, use standard front setbacks,
however, require screening of outdoor or semi-exposed: storage, loading, repair,
maintenance or work areas.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
•
December 19, 1994 25
*asof Nue
DECISION GUIDE FOR
SETBACKS IN THE
M 1 ,;DI M 84, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) ZONES.><»< < >> > <<<
ITEM 32.
MATRIX OF CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED (PLANNING (STAFF)
CHANGES COMMISSION)
.. .. .......... ...............................
SIDE / REAR
abutting SF 50' * 50' * ' 50 "
adjacent SF 50' * 50' 50'
abutting MF 50' * 50' * 50' *
adjct. MF 50' 50' 50'
abutting Comm. 20' * 20' 20'
adjacent Comm. 20';. * 20' 20'
* (screening required)
PROPOSAL:
1. Rename as "Interior Setback".
2. When abutting (sharing property boundaries with) a Residential Zone, require a 50'
building setback and a 15' landscaped strip with a 6' solid fence.
• Allow waiver of the solid fence through the Site Plan process if additional buffering is
provided, however, do not allow waiver of the solid fence for any outdoor or semi-
exposed: storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas.
• When adjacent (across the street) from a Residential or Commercial use require a 20'
landscaped front setback. Require screening of outdoor or semi-exposed: storage,
loading, repair, maintenance or work areas. Allow a reduction of the landscaped strip to
10' through Site Plan review if additional buffering is provided.
• For existing uses which encroach on required setbacks, require Site Plan review to
identify special buffering conditions in compensation for standard setbacks and/or
landscaping.
December 19, 1994 26
4 r