Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Windcrest Council debates limits on accessory buildings and impervious cover; staff to draft ordinance language
Summary
Council members and a building‑inspection expert discussed replacing accessory‑building counts with percentage limits on impervious cover (staff cited 30–35% rear‑yard norms), debated how patios and pools should count and asked staff to draft coordinated code and zoning language for future consideration.
The Windcrest City Council engaged in a detailed discussion about proposed amendments to Chapter 103 (Building Code) that would shift the city’s accessory‑building rules from a count‑based approach to percentage‑based limits tied to impervious cover.
BB Inspection Services representative Bruce Baylor told council the term 'impervious cover' typically includes areas where water does not penetrate and explained common locally used ratios: "Mostly what we see is 30 to 35% of a rear yard or impervious cover," he said, adding that including pools, patios and flatwork in calculations increases runoff and can create drainage problems on small lots.
Key issues discussed
- Whether percentages should apply to the required rear yard (measured from the rear-most building foundation) or the entire lot; staff recommended defining the rear yard from the rear edge of the main foundation, not the patio edge. - Whether pools, concrete patios, pergolas and driveways should count as impervious cover; examples from comparable jurisdictions vary, with some cities including pools and flat work and others excluding them. - Appropriate percentage ranges for different lot sizes; the inspector recommended about 30–35% for rear yards and warned that an 80% proposal pushed by one commenter would create commercial‑scale coverage and raise runoff concerns.
Council direction and next steps
Council members signaled support for a 35–40% bracket to consider further, requested clearer statutory language to define terms such as "impervious cover" and "required rear yard," and asked staff to draft coordinated amendments that would also be routed through the Planning & Zoning (PNZ) process before any final ordinance adoption. Staff cautioned that changes would have ripple effects across related code sections and zoning rules.
