Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 12, 2021 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Diehl moved and Howe seconded a motion to approve a continuance for the Foundry <br />GDP Amendment to August 26, 2021 at 6:30 PM. Motion passed 4-1, with <br />Commissioner Williams voting nay. <br />Ritchie thanked the members of the public in attendance for their participation, noting <br />that sometimes there were last-minute schedule changes for public hearing items. <br />NEW BUSINESS — PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS <br />LMC Amendment — Swimming Pools and Spas: Request for approval of a draft <br />ordinance amending the Louisville Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, concerning <br />swimming pools and spas (Resolution No. 12, Series 2021). <br />•Applicant: City of Louisville <br />• Case Planner: Lisa Ritchie, Principal Planner <br />All notice was met as required. <br />Ritchie described the item as an effort to clean up the Code, adding that it would not <br />change the current standards. She described the history of the zoning code regarding <br />fences around swimming pools, which had been in place since 1973, and stated that <br />building codes had advanced since then regarding pool safety and were much broader <br />than what was in the zoning code. Issues occurred when residents applied for pools and <br />did not understand that the underlying zoning also applied, and these issues have <br />increased as the number of pool applications has gone up recently. Overall, cleaning up <br />the Code would help reduce the burden of the fence standard. Ritchie added that hot <br />tubs or "spas" were not currently addressed in the Code and this would fix that. She <br />described the specific standards that related to swimming pools and spas. <br />Diehl asked if people were erecting secondary fences around pools due to the Code <br />requirement. <br />Ritchie replied that staff had given a couple of paths around the requirement, giving the <br />example of a couple of homeowners who have erected internal fences that met the <br />zoning code. Staff did not feel those additional steps were necessary if an applicant met <br />Title 15. <br />Diehl asked what would happen to a homeowner with a PUD requirement regarding <br />pools if Title 17 went away. <br />Ritchie replied that under the building code a pool application had other options other <br />than fences to ensure safety under Title 15. The applicant would have to do something <br />in addition to a fence outlined in the PUD under Title 15. <br />Moline asked if there was a minimum size where a pool was no longer called a pool. <br />Ritchie replied that she did not know about a minimum size but there was a whole <br />building code section that captured best practices regarding pools, including different <br />sizes. <br />Williams asked if there was a maximum depth for pools. <br />