CC_Minutes_2016_0822 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 22, 2016 Page 12 Councilmember Etten referenced line 51 in the RCA related to variance applica- tions; suggesting that may be confusing the issue compared with ordnance lan- guage that provided more clarity. Councilmember Etten asked if there was a limit to variances; with Mayor Roe noting demonstrated hardship criteria in accordance with State Statute that addressed variance requests and their subsequent approval or denial. City Manager Trudgeon noted the RCA allowed for any exceeding of code stand- ards requiring the variance application and process, opining it created nothing unique with this proposed ordinance either. Mr. Trudgeon noted any variance was considered on a case by case basis; with City Attorney Gaughan concurring that a hardship needed to be clearly demonstrated. Mayor Roe further noted that a variance application didn't guarantee approval, with safeguards in place to address the process. Councilmember McGehee stated her hope that, when this returns to the Planning Commission, they have a discussion on decks and DNR definitions. McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, that decks and their definition as pervious or impervious surfaces be considered based on the understructure materials. Mayor Roe suggested this may be more of a technical issue, and not require a change to zoning ordinance text, but simply how they're reviewed or applied. City Manager Trudgeon suggested including a definition of impervious surfaces beyond the primary building footprints, to include and address decks, pergolas, etc. Senior Planner Lloyd noted various surface applications under decks (e.g. cement or plastic) that may be used as an alternative to landscape fabrics that would typi- cally allow some water to permeate. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd expressed staffls curi- osity as to the City Council's intent for staff to review those ap}�licati�ns, if i�n- pervious plastic was used under mulch materials. Mayor Roe agreed that was a good question for consideration, and asked how staff would be aware of that distinction. Discussion ensued regarding types of materials and assessment of their permeabil- ity; whether pools are part of this discussion and emotion with staff's previous de- termination that they were considered impervious surfaces and may contain co- vers that made them more impermeable; and status of principle and accessory structures accordingly.