Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews proposed limits and safety checks for covered walkways and accessory structures
Summary
At its Nov. 26 meeting, the Bunker Hill Village Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed redline changes to accessory-use rules to clarify covered-walkway connections, require engineered plans, and include limits on walkway width and openings; no formal action was taken.
The Bunker Hill Village Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed proposed edits to the city's accessory-use rules on Nov. 26 that would clarify how covered walkways may connect main buildings to accessory structures and add safety and dimensional requirements.
Public Works Director Elvin Hernandez presented a redline of Appendix A (Sections 5.08(B) and 6.08(B)) that aims to update covered-walkway language, restrict the distance between accessory structures and main buildings and provide flexibility within existing setback rules. Hernandez said the revisions would make clear that a covered walkway may connect to the main building, subject to dimensional limits and plan-review requirements.
The proposed changes would: require covered walkways to be no more than six feet wide, ensure an accessory structure remains at least six feet from the main building, and add language preventing covered walkways from being fully enclosed (City Attorney Loren Smith recommended specifying that the walkway remain open on two sides). Hernandez told the Commission that builders would be required to submit structural plans stamped by a licensed Professional Engineer; those plans would also be reviewed by the City's structural engineer during plan review.
Vice-Chair John Gillette asked whether the walkway would be counted as permeable or impermeable for coverage calculations. Hernandez replied that the determination depends on the foundation material of the walkway and that coverage would be evaluated during plan review to ensure compliance with impervious/ pervious coverage requirements.
Commissioners expressed general support for the clarifying language so long as the accessory structure met setback and height limitations in the existing ordinance. Hernandez cautioned there are relatively few large lots where connections might be constrained and said some property owners could object to aesthetic impacts; staff will continue to assess those concerns.
No action was taken on the item. Staff will incorporate the Commission's feedback into a revised redline for further review at a future meeting.
