Laserfiche WebLink
HIMUTBS OP THE PLANNING COHMISSION HBBTING JANUARY 16 • 1990 <br />PROPOSED ZONING AMENDHENTS <br />A. SECTION 10.52, SUBDIVISION 3 <br />B. SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C) <br />PUBLIC HEARING 10:30 P.M. TO 10:35 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were <br />duly noted. <br />Mabusth explained the changes being proposed, <br />Kelley indicated that the inclusion of the availability of <br />municipal^water service to the Ordinance for Sanitary Sewer <br />Availability in the Highway 12 Corridor area was fine. <br />The other Planning Commissioners concurred. <br />Gaffron noted the Council's request for a Planning <br />Commission recommendation regarding inclusion of all pools as lot <br />coverage. Ee asked the Planning Commission to clarify their <br />intent of the Lot Coverage Ordinance. Gaffron's concerns are <br />that 15% is not a sufficient percentage if pools are included and <br />whether the intent of the Ordinance was to limit visual <br />encroachment of structures that stand above ground. <br />The Planning Commission reolied that was their intent. <br />Gaffron noted that there are two different types of pools <br />commonly built, and they should be treated differently. Gaffron <br />said that he categorizes an in-ground pool the same as a patio. <br />Kelley concurred with Gaffron and added, if there is a pool <br />that is 8* above ground and has an additional deck, that is a <br />structure. <br />Gaffron said that it is his understanding that the Planning <br />Commission would like the Ordinance to remain the way it was <br />written. <br />The Planning Commission said that it was written the way <br />they intended it to be. <br />Mabusth asked if a fence is required around a pool and it is <br />at least 5' high it should not be included in lot coverage? <br />t ^ _ __ A ^ a WKelley said that the first point to consider is <br />oool is in^the ground or above it. The next point is whether any <br />part of it extends beyond 6* in height above grade. <br />Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that the reason <br />this matter has been brought forward is due to the questions <br />raised in the Peterson application for a pool. <br />It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend <br />leaving the recently adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance as is. <br />Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-O, Motion passed.