Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farr West staff to seek minor accessory‑building height increase; setback unchanged
Summary
Planning staff proposed raising accessory‑building peak height from 20 to 21 feet and exterior wall height from 15 to 16 feet for lots under 1 acre to accommodate taller garage doors; staff said the 10‑foot setback will remain and the change will go to public hearing.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farr West planning staff said they will place a draft amendment on the agenda to raise the maximum peak height for accessory buildings on lots smaller than one acre from 20 feet to 21 feet and the maximum exterior wall height from 15 feet to 16 feet, while retaining the 10‑foot setback requirement.
Planning staff described the change as narrowly targeted to accommodate taller standard garage doors. Speaker 2, Planning staff, said, "the maximum height at its peak is 20 feet, and the exterior walls is 15 feet. Nate has asked that we increase that at the peak to 21 feet and the exterior walls to 16 feet. The reason being is the standard garage door size is 14 feet, and it will help it'll allow the residents to get high profile vehicles such as RVs and things like that into their garage of their building." The staff member added that the 12‑inch increase was considered minor: "12 inches is insignificant." (Speaker 2, Planning staff.)
The commission members present emphasized that the lateral setback would not change. Speaker 2 said the planning office will post the item as a public hearing at the next public meeting so the proposed wording change can be considered formally; staff cautioned against telling applicants a change is final before the city adopts it. "I wouldn't give him the green light until we've actually sanctioned this in our city," one participant said (Speaker 3, Committee member). Speaker 2 confirmed the amendment will be transmitted to Liam for legal review before formal notice and public hearing.
No vote or final ordinance was recorded at the work session; the item was described as being prepared for a public hearing at the next applicable meeting. The staff presentation noted the change applies only to lots under one acre and that applicants already waiting on the amendment had been informed the proposal was in process.

