Laserfiche WebLink
laonJTBS OF THE PLABMIB6 COMHISSIOH MBBIIBG JMia&ST 16# 1S90 <br />PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS <br />A. SECTION 10.52r SOBDIVISION 3 <br />B. SECTZOH 10.03» SOBOIVISIOH 14(C) <br />PUBLIC BEARING 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 />Coirmission recommendation regarding inclusion of all^poo-s as lot <br />coverage. He asked the Planning Commission to c-ari-y ..ne— <br />intent of the Lot Coverage ordinance. Garfron's concerns are <br />that 15% is not a sufficient percentage pools are included and <br />whether the intent of the ordinance was to_limit v.sua. <br />encroachment of structures that stand above grounc. <br />The Planning Commission replied that was their intent. <br />said that he categorizes an in-ground pool the same as a patio. <br />Kelley concurred with Gaffron -:'.d added, ir th«e is a pool <br />that is 8' above ground and has an additional dec.k. that is a <br />structure. <br />gji^fron said that it is his understanding that the P-anning <br />Commiss"ion would like the Ordinance to remain the way it was <br />written. <br />Tjie 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 />Kelley said that the first point to consicJer is jjj* <br />U beyond «• In h.ight abov. grad.. <br />raised in the Peterson application for a pool. <br />...„s s <br />Motion. Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. <br />M-c<