Planning Commission Minutes 2021 03 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 11, 2021 Page 6of9 additional building height. It stated that if someone were to build up to grade at those corners more than a foot, they should go 10 feet out from the building and measure at that point. That criterion worked for most properties, but there were still some issues. Zuccaro gave the example of someone manipulating the grade at that 10-foot point, where Code allowed changes, such as building a retaining wall to increase the grade a couple feet about natural grade. In that case, the new building would be out of scale with neighboring development. Zuccaro presented the proposal. The proposal linked the definition of grade to natural grade, or the pre -construction grade before any fill was added to the property. Zuccaro acknowledged that the typical Old Town lot was not at true natural grade, but the definition encompassed situations where a building had been scraped, creating an existing grade. He explained some of staff's efforts to clean up the language and noted that staff had kept the 12 inches of fill at the corners to allow some positive drainage. He described the details of the proposal in different situations for developments with and without PUDs and for developments requiring only minor permits. Brauneis asked for disclosures. None disclosed. Williams asked how positive the drainage was and if there was any room for misinterpreting positive drainage. Zuccaro replied that there was a minimum slope under building code. He stated that staff wanted to make sure that building design was not overly impacted as far as what the house could look like and as far as accommodating some positive drainage. Zuccaro noted that some people drained at a more severe slope but it was usually not too noticeable. Williams stated that drainage was subjective, giving the example of a development just outside of a flood plain or with a high water table, for which a developer might want to increase the grade to prevent any potential water backup. Williams asked if those types of situations were being addressed. Zuccaro replied that flood plain issues were not typical and required a whole new ballgame of regulations anyway. Williams agreed but reiterated the example of someone with a lot near a flood plain who wanted to protect the development. Zuccaro replied that that situation was not addressed in the proposal or in current Code. Williams asked if this was an issue that needed to be addressed. Zuccaro replied that he did not think so and added that this proposal was to address a character issue for neighborhoods to help height restrictions maintain consistency in character. Williams restated that she was tripped up on the drainage issue.