Laserfiche WebLink
Member Seigler suggested that should be re-analyzed when a resident remodeled <br /> of sought to improve their property. <br /> Specific to Items 2 and 3 of Attachment C, Chair Cihacek noted the apparent lack <br /> of consensus; with conceptual agreement with lowering the stormwater volume <br /> from 10,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet to be consistent with that of <br /> watershed districts; and agreement in principle, but not conforming with reality. <br /> Specifically, Chair Cihacek noted the need for more details on the permit process <br /> and tangible impacts for water quality overall as part of that stormwater <br /> management goal. <br /> Regarding the fund itself, Chair Cihacek asked that staff flesh out how the fund <br /> actually works (e.g. detailed financing, how and if it can be borrowed against, <br /> whether it would remain segregated or incorporated in the General Fund, how it <br /> could or would work with tax increment financing or other financing tools) to <br /> determine what was actually viable. <br /> Member Seigler agreed, opining that this comes across as a gimmick for him right <br /> now. <br /> While not having the actual data available tonight, Mr. Freihammer noted that <br /> building permit applications continued to increase annually as residents expand <br /> their homes. <br /> Member Wozniak noted his difficulty in understanding the design of these <br /> attachments: whether as fact sheets or standards; and suggested that for the <br /> general public, plainer language was needed to get across their intent. <br /> Chair Cihacek suggested a breakdown between residential and commercial <br /> properties and applications, since the decision-making could be different and <br /> involve a different process for both applications; as well as making it easier to <br /> read. <br /> 9. Possible Items for Next Meeting—May 24, 2016 <br /> • Annual MS4 Permit Public Hearing by Environmental Engineer Ryan <br /> Johnson <br /> • Follow-up on Tonight's Stormwater Discussion/Additional Information <br /> • Communication items from Staff <br /> • Solar Process Update <br /> • Recycling RFP Status Update <br /> • Right-of-Way Discussion (Seigler) <br /> Member Seigler asked that staff, including Public Works Director Culver, <br /> return with something more formal, including input from the Planning <br /> Commission on how calculations are done. <br /> • Pathway Master Plan Update and its Conformance to other Development <br /> Plans (Cihacek) <br /> Page 16 of 17 <br />