Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission updates lot‑coverage definition; asks staff to study incentives for permeable materials
Summary
The commission revised the lot‑coverage definition to count walkways and 'other improvements' (not just impervious surfaces) toward lot coverage, aligning the code with enforcement practice; commissioners asked staff to explore separate incentives or credits for permeable pavers and other green‑infrastructure materials.
On Sept. 11 the Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission approved a text amendment to section 11‑2‑2 that changes the definition of lot coverage by removing the phrase “impervious surfaces” and replacing it with language that counts building structures, walkways and “other improvements” toward lot coverage.
Staff explained the amendment responds to repeated questions about whether permeable pavers, artificial turf, grasscrete and similar products count toward lot coverage. Matt Busing said the city has generally enforced lot coverage to preserve natural green space and that permeable products, while beneficial for stormwater, can still function and appear like hardscape. He summarized the staff position: “Although we do recommend and encourage people to use permeable pavers, we don't think that necessarily maintains this intent of actually keeping green space.”
Commissioners discussed whether the change would remove incentives for property owners to use permeable or low‑impact materials. Several commissioners asked staff to consider a follow‑on study or a modest administrative credit (for example, a small percentage of lot‑coverage credit tied to verified performance/specs) to encourage pervious materials without undermining the zoning objective to preserve visible and functional green space. Staff said property owners may still pursue variances where necessary, and that site‑development stormwater rules (which apply to larger projects) provide other incentives.
The commission approved the amendment unanimously and included a request that staff examine possible incentives or bonus provisions for permeable materials and report back. The change is prospective and intended to align the ordinance wording with the city’s historic enforcement approach; commissioners emphasized the code change should not be applied retroactively to penalize recent installations that had been permitted or accepted under prior practice.
