2013_0909_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PROJECT FILE 0017 1 Request by the Planning Division for approval of ZONING TEXT CHANGES to Section 1004 (Residential 2 Districts) of the City Code to clarify the intent of certain requirements related to storm water (PROJ- 3 0017) 4 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0017 at approximately 7:09 p.m. 5 Mr. Lloyd reviewed the proposed TEXT AMENDMENTS as detailed in the staff report dated April 3, 2013; 6 specific to one- and two-family zoning districts that addresses hard surfaces and clarifies the intent and 7 applicability of provisions for rain water runoff. Some examples of issues included decks not typically 8 considered impervious surfaces as they allowed for some drainage, but also having the potential to consume a 9 majority of a site up to within two feet of the property boundaries. By adding an upper limit of things that could 10 be built on a site, Mr. Lloyd advised that the buildable portion of a lot could be addressed in residential 11 neighborhoods, allowing some expectations of what to expect from adjoining properties. 12 Mr. Lloyd addressed more specifics of this provision, reflecting a new tool for encouraging continued investment 13 in aging residential properties, as addressed in the Residential Storm Water Permit (ReSWP) as detailed in 14 Section 5.2 of the staff report. 15 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that items highlighted in Attachment A in red were 16 proposed new language, those items stricken were intended for deletion from current language, and the 17 remaining black font print would remain. Mr. Lloyd further confirmed that the impervious surface percentages 18 were already in place and nothing new, but the amended text provided clarifying examples and a new process 19 that may allow for some exceptions. On the exceptions, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that they would still require a 20 permit and fee, and that property plans would be reviewed by the Public Works/Engineering Department with 21 specific triggers defining that review on an administrative level, but not through a formal public meeting process. 22 While the 2010 Zoning Code update addressed that review and monitor maintenance by the Public 23 Works/Engineering Department, Mr. Lloyd noted that a definite process was now set up, and required 24 applicants to hire a landscape architect or company to make calculations for site drainage and storm water 25 mitigation to address requirements of the ReSWP, with third party involvement over time to ensure mitigation 26 steps remain in place and continue to function. 27 Various examples were discussed among Members and staff; as well as accessibility for mobility-impaired 28 occupants; new technologies for pervious and semi-pervious surface applications; and review of some issues 29 as part of the normal building permit process beginning at the Community Development Department, unless a 30 trigger was identified requiring further review by the Public Works/Engineering Department to ensure that storm 31 water requirements of the ReSWP were met. 32 Further discussion included updates in 2010 that incorporated patios and decks in the site improvement 33 permitting process, provided for a lower intensity review of site improvements not requiring a more formal 34 building permit. 35 Member Daire suggested that before anticipating doing anything on a property, it would be a good idea to check 36 with the City to determine if a permit was required. Member Daire opined that a person’s latitude for his property 37 was disappearing. 38 Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively; however, he noted that the City’s Building Permit Inspector was good at 39 observing things throughout the community and determining whether or not those improvements needed or had 40 obtained a permit, and working well with residents in the process. 41