CC_Minutes_2016_1205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 5, 2016 Page 6 Discussion ensued regarding inaking the iinprovement area permeable versus im- pervious, with staff clarifying the 35% limit for impervious coverage on a lot re- mained the same, with the remaining percentage requiring mitigation to address any additional stormwater runoff; size of lots for LDR-1 and LDR-2 designations; and staff providing examples of pervious improvements that didn't count toward the 35% impervious, but counted as improvelnents (e.g. planting areas with super- structures; geo-grid materials that weren't necessarily paving but considered hard drivable surfaces; ar outdoor pools). Councilmember Willmus asked that, in the future, staff include past City Council meeting minutes, in addition to those of the Planning Commission, providing background information when applicable; duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon. When looking at LDR-2 designated properties, Councilmember Willmus advised that he was looking to provide a mechanism or means of construction far a greater level of affordability. However, as the lot coverage ratio creeps us, Councilmem- ber Willmus opined that it resulted in higher-end homes; therefore, causing him to struggle with the Planning Commission's recommended 60%. Mayor Roe referenced the visual examples provided from Planning Commission- er Daire with their information, and asked Mr. Lloyd to display the sketch, partic- ularly the LDR-2 example and their specific calculations related to setback sce- narios with rear and front yard setbacks at 30'. Using those examples, Mayar Roe opined that the results appeared to come out well under 60% from his understand- ing. Mr. Lloyd noted that he had intentionally omitted too much discussion on the sketch submitted by Commissioner Daire as, while it helped some Planning Commissioners visualize lot proportions, it included only the principle structures for setback examples, but didn't take into consideration driveways or other de- tached structures on a site (e.g. storage sheds and/or play structures) that could re- sult in being much closer up to the 5' setbacks for property lines. Mr. Lloyd not- ed that the lot area available for many improvements aside from the principle structure were not well-represented in those sketches, making it impossible to meaningfully represent that envelope accurately or completely. If the developable area could reach 60% if ineeting setbacks and providing miti- gation for additional stormwater, Councilmember Etten asked if the primary structure could in effect cover up to 60% of the lot area. Mr. Lloyd responded that it could not, as there would then be no room for a driveway under city code provisions; with restrictions addressed for height, set- backs, and allowance on the site for the driveway, sidewalks and other necessary site improvements, even though the lion's share of the area could be the house.