CC_Minutes_2012_0723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 23, 2012 Page 27 part of the condition for approval of this request, therefore improving drainage somewhat. Ms. Bloom advised that staff would be bringing information for- ward to the City Council for authorization to address this watershed area within the next 6-8 months, at which time staff would meet with the neighborhood to review those mitigation efforts with them. Because the applicant is not proposing to pave anything additional, Ms. Bloom noted that this was the rationale for staff's comments in the staff report about the application not requiring any mitigation as it didn't meet the threshold to do so. Ms. Bloom noted that the area in the back would remain grass; and the con- dition that no snow be stored in that area in the future, should further alleviate issues for the neighborhood. Ms. Bloom addressed the unfortunate route for runoff through Mr. Leopold's garage, and the Storm Water Plan currently in process to address that situation and provide alternative routing; thus negating the need for the applicant to provide a storm water mitigation plan. At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom confirmed that a Storm Water Plan for this, as well as other problematic areas of the City, was currently underway and would be brought forward to the City Council upon its completion in order to receive their direction and authorization to proceed. Ms. Bloom noted that this was an infrastructure issue and a high priority for the City. Councilmember Willmus asked if the applicant would be willing to extend the City's 60-day review period to allow time for them to interact with the neigh- borhood and staff to reach a resolution or clarify the application. Mr. Barton responded negatively, based on their need to proceed with the sub- division and put the residential property on the market as soon as possible to re- coup their expenses. At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that this action would make the existing commercial property larger and the residential parcel smaller. Councilmember Pust asked if the addition to the existing parcel, al- ready having significant structure/asphalt on it, triggered any different analysis for impervious surface coverage for that lot, or if they were grandfathered in. Mr. Lloyd advised that, if the application caused some of that existing property to be paved or further expanded it would change the analysis; however, addi- tional green space was actually being added through staff's recommended con- ditions, seen as an improvement from their perspective. At the request of Councilmember Pust, Ms. Bloom advised that the zoning des- ignation for commercial areas such as that of the applicant did not create a min-