2013-04-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 3, 2013 Page 6 requiring further review by the Public Works/Engineering Department to ensure that 246 storm water requirements of the ReSWP were met. 247 Further discussion included updates in 2010 that incorporated patios and decks in the 248 site improvement permitting process, provided for a lower intensity review of site 249 improvements not requiring a more formal building permit. 250 Member Daire suggested that before anticipating doing anything on a property, it would 251 be a good idea to check with the City to determine if a permit was required. Member 252 Daire opined that a person’s latitude for his property was disappearing. 253 Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively; however, he noted that the City’s Building Permit 254 Inspector was good at observing things throughout the community and determining 255 whether or not those improvements needed or had obtained a permit, and working well 256 with residents in the process. 257 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd addressed rationale for ReSWP 258 mitigation and maintenance requirements. 259 Member Boguszewski opined that the proposed text amendments made it easier for 260 property owners, under certain circumstances, to improve their property. 261 Mr. Lloyd concurred, noting that up until approximately five years ago, the only way for a 262 residential property owner to get more impervious coverage limits was through a formal 263 variance process. Since then, Mr. Lloyd advised that many of those variances were 264 routinely granted through the administrative process; however until this proposed text 265 amendment, exceptions could not be addressed to ensure proper maintenance of storm 266 water features to ensure they continued to function and didn’t become problematic for 267 neighboring properties. Mr. Lloyd advised that this was an attempt to make the process 268 one step simpler through a permitting process versus the formal variance process. 269 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd estimated approximately 80% or more 270 of the City’s LDR-1 and LDR-2 structures were over twenty (20) years old; and even 271 though that time frame incorporated a lot of development during the 1990’s, it was a good 272 place to start. 273 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:38 p.m.; with no one 274 appearing for or against. 275 MOTION 276 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to recommend to 277 the City Council APPROVAL of the proposed TEXT AMENDMENT, as detailed and 278 based on the comments and findings of Section 4-6, and the recommendation of 279 Section 7 of the staff report dated April 3, 2013. 280 Member Boguszewski opined that he had no interest in changing the twenty year 281 timeframe; and that property owners should be allowed to do as much as possible on 282 their private property as long as it didn’t prove harmful to their neighbors or the overall 283 city. 284 Member Daire concurred with Member Boguszewski; and as a retired professional 285 Planner, expressed his observation in the amount of public concern had been manifested 286 in the permitting process. While not a change he liked to see, Member Daire recognized 287 valid concerns in a fully-developed area. 288 Ayes: 7 289 Nays: 0 290 Motion carried. 291 Anticipated City Council action is scheduled for April 15, 2013. 292