Laserfiche WebLink
One of the charges of this subcommittee was to study the calculation of maximum <br />development area of unusually sloped lots. The report noted that there were <br />situations where a parcel that had one lot unit factor may allow greater <br />development and floor area than a parcel with greater than 1 lot unit factor, but one <br />that had a portion of steep terrain. Four lots were analyzed using current formulas <br />and also using proposed formulas which would eliminate areas of excessive slope. <br />Johnson and Siegel thought this process could be much too complicated and take up <br />too much staff time. Casey and Hubbard thought it a question of fairness and Casey <br />did not think it was any more complicated than the current slope density ordinance. <br />Dauber commented that this really would not affect too many lots but it would be a <br />more equitable solution. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Johnson <br />and passed unanimously to refer the following ordinance change to the City <br />Attorney and to request the Planning Commission to schedule a public hearing on <br />the proposed change: "On a parcel with a lot unit factor greater than 1, the allowable <br />development and floor area will be at least equal to the development and floor area <br />that can be obtained on any portion of the parcel that is equal to or greater than 1 lot <br />unit factor as long as that portion constitutes a legal lot as described in 9-6.03-4. Any <br />existing home and development must be located on the lot and conform to <br />ordinances, and that portion of the property not used for calculating the allowable <br />development area must be dedicated as a conservation easement.' <br />The report from the subcommittee also addressed the following: the purpose of <br />maximum development area with respect to permeability and the appearance of <br />development; a rationale for determining the development area exemptions for <br />permeable surfaces; and a recommendation on the clay tennis court material. <br />Casey did not agree with the statement if it looked like a structure it was a structure. <br />She believed drainage was a large issue and commented that while a horse ring was <br />not counted, tennis courts were. She further commented that only approximately <br />5% of the Town's residents had horses and she did not think it fair to single out <br />certain amenities. Casey supported conducting another Town survey to obtain <br />input from the residents. Siegel noted that this was only an issue for those who had <br />reached maximum development on their property. The Town was not against <br />tennis courts. <br />Dr. Larry Hwong, 12813 Clausen Court, agreed with Casey that a survey should be <br />conducted to get input from residents. He commented on when a structure was <br />considered a structure and further stated that he supported the use of grass Crete. <br />Peggy Esber, 13430 Country Way, commented that there were different points of <br />view and a tennis court whether done in grasscrete or concrete looked like a tennis <br />court. <br />May 3, 1995 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />