Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9.6745(3)(b) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.6745(3)(c) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.6805; 9.6870 <br />(table~.. <br />~ <br /> <br />9.6810 <br /> <br />rf) <br /> <br />9.6815(2) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.6820; <br />9.803~) <br />(zj) <br />9.6870 (table) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.6885(2) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.7015 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Projecting Architectural <br />Features for Multiple Story <br />Buildings <br /> <br />Allowance for signs in required <br />front yard setbacks <br /> <br />Dedication of Public Ways <br /> <br />Requires new local streets to <br />intersect with other streets at <br />intervals of 600' or less <br /> <br />Adjustment Review regarding <br />street connectivity <br /> <br />Cul-de-sac requirements <br /> <br />Cul-de-sac design standards <br /> <br />Tree preservation plans requires <br />report from certi.fied arborist <br /> <br />Completeness Review <br /> <br />Previous language was <br />inadvertently omitted which <br />allowed eaves, chimneys and <br />similar architectural features <br />above one story to project into <br />side yards (as is allowed for the <br />first story) <br />Code section describing <br />allowed intrusions into setbacks <br />does not match allowance cited <br />in residential zones & sign <br />standards <br />References to public way <br />design standards do not ensure <br />consistency with public <br />improvement policies and <br />Arterial Collector Street Plan <br />Code does not allow flexibility <br />from the 600' standard expect <br />for situations where physical <br />constraints preclude compliance' <br /> <br />Adjustment review process is <br />redundant. Street connectivity <br />is already evaluated as part of <br />land use application <br />(subdivision, partition, PUD, <br />etc) <br />Language describing when a <br />cul-de-sac VS. alternative <br />designs (i.e. hammerheads) can <br />be used is confusing <br />Right-of-way (ROW) and <br />paving width requirements are <br />not consistent with other <br />adopted public works standards <br />Requirement is limited to <br />certified arborists. In some <br />cases, landscape architects are <br />better equipped to look at <br />broader site design options to <br />improve tree preservation <br />Language is not consistent with <br />more recently adopted State <br />Statutes; primarily the 10 day <br />response period required of <br />I applicants <br /> <br />Modify language to clarify that <br />these architectural features are <br />allowed to project as per current <br />policy <br /> <br />Revise code to be consistent in <br />all three locations allowing <br />si gns to extend up to 5' into 1 0' <br />front yard setback <br /> <br />Provide necessary references in <br />Chapter 9 to ensure other <br />adopted design standards and <br />policies are apphed <br /> <br />Create an exception provision <br />allowing requests for <br />exceptions to the 600' standard <br />while maintaining street <br />connectivity and emergency <br />access objectives. <br />Eliminate requirement for <br />separate adjustment review and <br />fold in exception process as part <br />of the primary land use <br />application review <br /> <br />Clarify circumstances in which <br />exceptions to cuI-de-sac design <br />can be requested and granted <br /> <br />Revise the table to specify <br />consistent right-of-way <br />standards for cul-de-sacs <br /> <br />Revise standard to allow <br />landscape architects as well as <br />certified arborists to provide the <br />required report <br /> <br />Revise language to ensure <br />consistency with State Law <br />