2012-06-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

539 Ms. Bloom advised that the City did need to be aware of permits filed and issues 540 to ensure City Codes related to wetlands are adhered to; and suggested a solution 541 would be if a partnership could be initiated with those WSD's for the process. 542 Ms. Bloom suggested that could be a goal or policy, as well as implementation 543 activity, of the Plan to develop those partnerships and transfer LGU to WSD's. 544 City should require storm water compliance, if different than the current 10,000 545 Member DeBenedet opined that it seemed to be only common sense if all storm 546 water plans were supposed to be reviewed and coordinated by those agencies, if 547 the City's Plan went to those agencies as well, that they, as an LGU should be 548 required to communication all wetland decisions to applicable parties and cities. 549 Member DeBenedet suggested calling that out as part of the Plan update; with the 550 WSD's needing to agree with that portion of the Plan, or demand a change in the 551 552 Plan. Aft, 561 Member Stenlund opined that "streamline" should be the overriding emphasis of 562 the Plan, whether through transferring LGU responsibilities, as well as WSD's 563 communication responsibilities to the City, not through adding another regulation 564 565 or another bu cratic la er but throw h "streamlining" the process. 566 Regarding development standards, discussion ensued regarding at what point the 567 City should require storm water compliance, if different than the current 10,000 568 square feet minimum threshold for erosion control as previously discussed. 569 570 Ms. Bloom advised that the City's current BMP practical practice is requiring 571 compliance for any new impervious surface over 5,000 square feet or any 572 disturbance over' /4 acre. Ms. Bloom questioned at what point that became a 573 requirement, no (e.g. home additions, porches) and staff s perspective 574 #aactice that they neede cle for enforcement and public information that was 575 consistent rather rbitrary, via a standard policy. Ms. Bloom noted that, in 576 the past, there were no storm water requirements for single - family residences 577 unless they were exceeding the impervious surface threshold. 578 579 Discussion among Commissioners and staff included the need, while problematic, 580 of properties on a hillside or having unique topographical circumstances and hoe 581 to implement regulations without being arbitrary; how to set up a framework for 582 case by case review, with special cases, as a goal. 583 Page 13 of 19