11-26-2001 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lot Coverage Ordinance Amendment November 20,2001 Page 2 Planning Commission discussed this topic at their November 19 work session, llie work session was followed by a public hearing regarding the proposed amendment, held during the regular PC meeting of Noveml^r 19. llte only residents in attendance to comment on the proposal were the Chevy Chase property residents, who indicated they were in favor of changes that would allow them to keep the pool, but they understood the broader ramifications of a code amendment that aOccts the entire City. PlanniBg Commisskm Rccommcndatioii The Planning Commission split into two distinct 'camps' on this topic, resulting in a 4-3 vote on a recommendation to drop pools and their associated paiios^deeks from the lot coverage calculation. Hawn, Mabusth, Stoddarf and Rahn support this change, but only if it is accompanied by a new hardcover limitation on all non-Shoreland residential lots under 2 acres in area (50% was suggested). Smith, Lindquist and Fritzler are against the proposed amendment. They feel that pools and their associated patios/decks should continue to be calculated as lot coverage by structure, and suggest that decks regardless of height should also be considered for inclusion os lot coverage. Staff Recommendation Given the lack of Planning Commission consensus, this may be a difficult issue for Council to resolve without further discussion. While a non-Shoreland 50% liordcover maximum may be philosophically in tunc with Oiono's environmental goals, this requirement will add significantly to the burden on permit applicants, because non-Shorclond residents would incur the costs of additional survey work to accurately make hardcover calculations. Most properties will not have a problem meeting the 50% limit, but some small lots might be affected. Council should consider whether the intent of the lot coverage ordinance is merely to address visual bulk and massing of aboveground structures on small properties, or if it is perceived as ser\ ing a broader purpose. If it scrs'cs some ‘broader purposes’, it may be useful to identify those purposes and consider whether limiting lot coverage is the best method to accomplish them. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should take one of the following actions; 1. 2. 3. Direct staff to draff on ordinance for adoption, either: - per the majority recommendation of the Planning Commission; or. - per the minority recommendation of the Planning Commission. Direct staff to discontinue activity related to this code amendment. Table the matter to a work session for further discussion; direct staff as to what additional information could be provided that will be useful. Other.