Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Aggregate side yard

  1. #1
    Cyburbian Jeff's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mr. Cool Ice
    Posts
    4,161

    Aggregate side yard

    Please give me your interpretation (or the true meainig) of aggregate side yard.

    Sample Ordinance Req:

    Side Yard = 10'
    Agg. Side Yard = 30'

    Does that mean you need a ten, next to a 20 (or 2 x 15), or does it mean you need a total of 30' of side yard on each lot?

    I've been seeing this interpretation going both ways. Not sure which is correct?

  2. #2
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,185
    I would say you need at least 10 ten on either side of the house, but the total of both side yards must be at least 30 feet.

    I think these kind of standards are stupid. Just make it 15 feet minimum on each side and leave it at that.

    Sometimes there seems to be complication for the sake of complication. Unless someone can give a sensible rationale.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  3. #3
    Cyburbian Jeff's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mr. Cool Ice
    Posts
    4,161
    So you're saying the total building separation is 30'??
    Last edited by Jeff; 17 Jan 2007 at 9:44 AM.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    17,707
    I agree with mendelman.


    From my fair city code we have this as a FOOTNOTE to the minimum side yard.

    On lots smaller than 40 feet in width which were platted before the effective date of this ordinance, a percentage computation will apply: Every yard shall have a side yard on each side, each of which shall be at least 10% of the width of the lot in width, and the aggregate width of both side yards on any lot shall be at least 25% of the width of the lot in width.
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

  5. #5
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,185
    Quote Originally posted by Jeff View post
    So you're saying the total building separation is 30'??
    Yes...maybe. It either is 30 feet for the total of both sideyards for one individual property or a total of 30 feet for the space between neighboring houses.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  6. #6
    Cyburbian Emeritus Chet's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    South Milwaukee
    Posts
    8,935
    And the vacant infill lot gets screwed when both abutters are at 10'

  7. #7
    Corn Burning Fool giff57's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 1998
    Location
    On the Mother River
    Posts
    4,559
    In my last planning job it read like this:

    Side yards must be a total of 16 ft with no side less than 6ft.
    “As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall”
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  8. #8
    Cyburbian Jeff's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mr. Cool Ice
    Posts
    4,161
    So, with my example, it is possible to have a building separation of 20'??

    Are we in agreement/disagreement?

  9. #9
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,185
    Quote Originally posted by Jeff View post
    So, with my example, it is possible to have a building separation of 20'??

    Are we in agreement/disagreement?
    Sure, then the other side of the house would have 30 or 40 feet between buildings, depending.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  10. #10
    Cyburbian Seabishop's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally posted by Jeff View post
    So, with my example, it is possible to have a building separation of 20'??

    Are we in agreement/disagreement?
    With aggregate side yards it doesn't matter how far back the neighboring building is. You could have a minimum separation distance of only 10' if the neighboring building is right on the property line. Its just a total side yard of 30' (for both sides) with the minimum on each side being 10'. At least it gives you some more flexibility than strict setbacks.

  11. #11
    Cyburbian SideshowBob's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Location, Location.
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally posted by mendelman View post
    I would say you need at least 10 ten on either side of the house, but the total of both side yards must be at least 30 feet.

    I think these kind of standards are stupid. Just make it 15 feet minimum on each side and leave it at that.

    Sometimes there seems to be complication for the sake of complication. Unless someone can give a sensible rationale.
    I agree with everything you say. Our code has aggregate side yards that have always been interpreted as a total of the property's two sides.

    Every now and then, I need to explain this to someone for a minute.If it can be 10 feet on one side, then why not ten feet on both.

    I can provide no sensible rationale.
    Fighting congestion by widening roads is like fighting obesity by buying larger clothes.

  12. #12
          Downtown's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Under a pile of back issue Plannings
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally posted by SideshowBob View post
    I agree with everything you say. Our code has aggregate side yards that have always been interpreted as a total of the property's two sides.

    Every now and then, I need to explain this to someone for a minute.If it can be 10 feet on one side, then why not ten feet on both.

    I can provide no sensible rationale.
    ditto this.

    ours is minimum of 10, total of 25. from the building to the property line.

  13. #13
    Cyburbian Cityscape Dreamer's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Department of B/S
    Posts
    31
    It doesnt matter what we think, if the ordinance language is vague or unclear, have your ZBA provide an interpretation.
    Last edited by Cityscape Dreamer; 17 Jan 2007 at 7:51 PM. Reason: clarity of thought

  14. #14
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,474
    Quote Originally posted by Cityscape Dreamer View post
    It doesnt matter what we think, if the ordinance language is vague or unclear, have your ZBA provide an interpretation.
    That's not the way it works in my jurisdiction. The Planning Manager makes the interpretation and the decision is appealable to the Board of County Commissioners.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian mike gurnee's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 1998
    Location
    Greensburg, Kansas
    Posts
    2,950
    Aggregate side yards suck. Chet has obviously been there. It can kill infill develoopment. Last one in gets the shaft.

  16. #16
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,185
    Quote Originally posted by mike gurnee View post
    Aggregate side yards suck. Chet has obviously been there. It can kill infill develoopment. Last one in gets the shaft.
    Plus, if one house needs a variance from the aggregate amount does the neighoring house also need to be party to that variance request? Therefore, forcing a party into the request that has no reason to be there apart from a silly code provision.

    I've run into this situation in a previous job and we just ignored it because it was easier for everyone and the board and electeds didn't really know the code as well as us anyways.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  17. #17
    Cyburbian WhenIGrowUp's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Atlanta-ish
    Posts
    69
    I am a little confused by this thread. I'm not sure if you guys are marring the line between setback lines, which is a zoning/land use issue, and building separation (on abutting lots), which is a building code issue. I think most building codes agree that up to a certain height (I believe it's 35 feet, but I'm not sure), principal building separation need be only 10 feet, regardless of property lines/ownership.

    Take three side-by-side lots: How can you say that if the house on the left side is 10 feet from the center lot, and the house on the right side is 10 feet from the center lot, the center lot gets screwed? How does the position of those other two lots have any bearing on where you place the center house? Place the center house 10 or more feet off of either property line, and the rest of the distance from the remaining proprty line. There's no conflict, no matter the order of construction.

    Just design zoning ordinances that don't conflict with building code and you should be OK.

    This still does not answer the earlier question: why have aggregate setbacks in the first place? I'm not sure. But it's sure fun trying to explain them, especially to ESL builders.

  18. #18
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally posted by WhenIGrowUp View post
    I am a little confused by this thread. I'm not sure if you guys are marring the line between setback lines, which is a zoning/land use issue, and building separation (on abutting lots), which is a building code issue. I think most building codes agree that up to a certain height (I believe it's 35 feet, but I'm not sure), principal building separation need be only 10 feet, regardless of property lines/ownership.
    [privacy advocate hat on]
    sometimes building code doesn't keep the prying eyes of my neighbor far enough away from me. That's why I want a minimum 30 feet between my house and my neighbors.[/hat off]

    Not something that I agree with. But we plan/design for all citzens, not for just me.
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. What's In YOUR Yard?
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 66
    Last post: 14 Oct 2010, 1:27 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last post: 14 Dec 2009, 3:22 PM
  3. Yard Games & Yard Toys & The Like
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 7
    Last post: 25 Nov 2008, 1:03 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last post: 10 May 2006, 4:51 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last post: 20 Jan 2006, 11:17 AM