Laserfiche WebLink
MXVDTBS of the PLMWIMG COMNISSIOH MEETING JAMDART 16, 1990 <br />PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS <br />A. SECTION 10.52, SOBOIVISION 3 <br />B. SECTION 10.03, SOBDIVISIOH 14(C) <br />Of Mailing w.r. <br />duly noted. <br />Mabusth explained the chances being proposed. <br />Kelley indicated that the inclusion of t.he 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 Cononissioners concurred. <br />Gaffron noted the Council's request^for a Planning <br />Conaniss-.on recominendaticn regarding inclusion or all pools as -ct <br />covp.rac-e He asked the Planning Commission to clariry ..hei. <br />inter.-. 'oJ the Lot Coverage Ordinance. Garrron's concerns are <br />that 15% is not a sufficient percentage if poc-s are -ncluded a.nd <br />whether the intent of the jrdinance was to limit visua- <br />encroac"’"ent of structures that stand above ground. <br />''yitt Planning Commission replied that was their intent. <br />Gaffron noted that there are two different types of po^ols <br />commonly built, and they should be treated differently, ^a.^ron <br />said that he categorizes an in-ground pool the same as a patio. <br />concurred with Gaffron and added, if there is a pool <br />that is 8' above ground and has an additional deck, that *s a <br />structure. <br />Qa^fron said that it is his understanding that the Planning <br />Coromiss’ion 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 />- , *'.4 ^h« first point to consider is whether the <br />raised in the Peterson application for a pool. <br />Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed.