2010-10-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

additional monitoring or enforcement was indicated, with the PWET Commission playing a role in researching those projects. Mr. Trudgeon advised that this was a whole different realm of service, in monitoring the completed designs and ensuring regulations are being met that was above and beyond the current budget of his department, unless a significant commitment was provided and additional resources (staff and funding) from the C City's policy- makers. Member Vanderwall suggested having the conversation about a project before its construction and its management or maintenance following when it was initially proposed to ensure developers /builders are aware of the City's expectations and to receive their commitment for future management of the design. Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that developers were required to meet a certain standard, and if not meeting that standard or not correcting issues to comply, there would be consequences. Member Stenlund noted that such a process would ensure documentation of the discussions of expectations for later reference if needed. Mr. Trudgeon noted the significant number of applications and permits processed through the Planning Department on a regular basis that were of a routine nature and handled administratively by staff, without proceeding formally to the Planning Commission and /or City Council for approval, but still receiving the same internal review process and routed through each department (DRC) to receive their input based on their expertise for each project. Mr. Trudgeon noted the need for staff to provide more emphasis on that process to assure the public that a thorough review was being done. Mr. Trudgeon suggested further discussion on how to create a trigger to indicate involvement in the review process by the PWET Commission to avoid overtaxing their time, while allowing for valuable interaction. In his previous role as a Planning Commissioner in Roseville, Chair DeBenedet noted the action taken for eliminating review of site plans by the Commission for Conditional Use Permits, through developing a set of performance standards from which staff could work and issue building permits. Chair DeBenedet assured everyone that he was not interested in backtracking; but rather was interested in a voice for the PWET Commission on subdivisions and those types of sites requiring a Conditional Use; while also being kept informed about things being approved administratively or through a more formal process, specifically to observe and ensure that storm water BMP's included mitigation efforts when a property's use indicated increased density. Chair DeBenedet advised that he was not concerned about minor projects, such as construction of a new deck or a minimal increase in site coverage. Page 7 of 14