11-26-2001 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NOV 2 6 2001 Cl I Y Or Onui*o Dale: November 20.2001 Item No.:// Departmeat Approval: Nairn: Michael P. Gaflron Title: PUnnuig Director Adaiiiidaiinblralor Approval:Agenda Scctioa: Zoning Item Description: ^01*2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment • Section 10.03 Subd. I4C Structural Lot Coverage Ordinance Standards rc: Pools Lbt ofEihibita A - Planning Commission Work Session Memo and E.xhibits 11/7/01 Summary' of Amendment: Under the proposed amendment, in-ground pools and their associated grade-level patios would no longer be considered as structures for the purpose of calculating “lot coverage by structures". The original lot coverage ordinance in 1989 did not include pools in the calculation of lot coverage. The ordinance was amended 6 months after its adoption to include pools and their associated patios. The currently proposed amendment has received staff support principally because the original intent of the “lot coverage” ordinance was to address and minimize the visual bulk and massing of structures on smaller properties. Staff would argue that in-ground pools with fences no higher than 6 feet above grade do not have the visual impacts the ordinance was intended to address. Planning Commission is nearly evenly divided on the issue. This issue surfaced recently in relation to the replacement of a home on Chevy Chase Drive. The proposed new home w ould use the entire 15% lot coverage allotment. Retention of the existing in- ground pool and its associated patio/dcck would result in on additional 8% lot coverage, for a total lot coverage of 23%. Council approved the lot area variance in October subject to removal of the pool at the time the house is removed, unless the ordinance changes so that the pool is not lot coverage. It seems inconsistent that in-ground pools and their associated patios screened by 6* fences would be considered as having a visual impact different than that of simply a patio surrounded by 6' fences, which would not be calculated as lot coverage. The Council in 1990 apparently viewed the 15% lot coverage limitation as a tool for addressing more than just the visual impacts of pools. Note that at the same time lot coverage limitations came into effect, they were accompanied by more restrictive setbacks for certain accessory structures such as pools, tennis courts, and paddocks or arenas (10.03, Subd. 14D). These more restrictive setbacks were primarily intended to minimize the impacts of activities on neighboring properties by forcing such structures away from lot lines, but also resulting in greater open spaces between lots.