1/16/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

impervious surface, it does constitute an open space and the residents of that particular unit will use it as open space. If people have recreation space and have a private pool or tennis court, for instance, it is comparable to the required recreation open space and will be credited as open space. Vice Chairman Scurlock asked about the visual impact and brought up The Mews which has interior courtyards, but these are not visible to people passing by. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that this is private exterior open space we are talking about and an interior atrium would not qualify for this. He felt the important point is that you want to encourage people to put in swimming pools, patios, gazebos, etc., and if they don't get credit for this and have to have other property for open space, they are not as likely to put these in. Discussion continued as to whether atriums, such as at the Hidden Harbor project and The Mews are considered interior or exterior areas, and Attorney Brandenburg believed if something is between units, it is exterior and if it is within a unit, it is interior. Commissioner Wodtke agreed if you have a swimming pool or tennis court, that should qualify as exterior open space, but Attorney O'Haire argued that when you have a swimming pool which is enclosed by four walls and used only by one family, it does not really accomplish anything in terms of the open space requirement. Director Keating noted that staff considers that it does serve some of the functions of open space and should be credited to a certain extent, and that is why it was set at 10%. Attorney Brandenburg clarified that the loo should refer to 100 of the open space requirement of the development, not gross area. Vice Chairman Scurlock continued to express concern about the visual impact of having open space, and Attorney Brandenburg 53 BOOK � JAN 16 1985 J