Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, November 14, 2016 <br />Page 33 <br /> <br />smaller lots, forcing staff to look at the percentage of existing impervious surface <br />coverage. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe noted it would be essentially a hardscape or impervious surface im- <br />provement permit. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee spoke in favor of that, opining that erosion problems <br />are one of the biggest problems in the community due to increasing impervious <br />surfaces, even though there are regulations in place, no one seems to adhere to <br />them. <br /> <br />Planned Unit Developments, Public Assis- <br />The other new fees, including and <br />tance fees for applications and escrow, <br /> Ms. Collins noted were previously re- <br />viewed and approved by the City Council based on the newly adopted Public As- <br />sistance Policy. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe asked that staff clarify and consider a name other than “public assis- <br />tance” to avoid misunderstandings by the public based on other connotations of <br />the term. <br /> <br />Specific to the Public Assistance application fee set at $1,500, City Attorney <br />Gaughan suggested staff denote that as the initial or minimum amount for escrow <br />versus giving the impression it was capped at that amount. Mr. Gaughan noted <br />this would allow for additional funds should a project prove highly complex and <br />allow the escrow account to city to replenished. <br /> <br />Ms. Collins agreed that should apply to any escrow account, and if addressed here <br />it should be done consistently throughout. <br /> <br />Mr. Culver noted that the existing footnote D in the Subdivision area indicated <br />that and could be extended to include public assistance applications accordingly; <br />with Ms. Collins duly noting that suggestion. <br /> <br />Landscape Plan Escrow (page 16) <br />‘land- <br />Ms. Collins clarified that staff estimated the escrow amount needed for <br />scape plans” <br /> based on the scale of a project and to incorporated the time for the <br />arborist to review tree preservation and restoration plans as applicable. <br /> <br />Park Dedication Fees (Page 4) <br />Parks & Recreation Director Brokke advised that the Parks & Recreation Com- <br />mission had closely tracked this over the last fifteen years, and based on that data <br />was recommending the increase in residential fees, and increase for non- <br />residential fees as noted. Mr. Brokke advised that this was done largely because <br />of its correlation of the quality of the park system, past and future substantial in- <br />vestments made to the system, and future investments identified in the CIP yet to <br /> <br />