CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 13, 2010 Page 13 dards applied by City staff. Ms. McGehee specifically addressed those proposed design standards as they related to community churches or schools. Ms. McGehee spoke in support of the petitions from adjacent neighbors along Old Highway 8; opining that with this proposed code, the City Council and/or staff could no longer hold developers to conditions and terms of a Planned Unit Devel- opment (PUD) Agreement that would allow the City, developer and community to negotiate and work in harmony for transition; creating negative impacts related to height, setbacks and exterior materials, without any public input. Ms. McGehee advised that she had major issues with the LANDSCAPING sec- tion, opining that some things were ludicrous compared to existing code, specifi- cally requirements for staff review and inspections, with limited staff expertise other than from a part-time arborist. Ms. McGehee expressed concern in the shift from 30% to 50% impervious coverage and confusion among the various drafts of the document between the Planning Commission and City Council; and opined that the proposed stormw runoff calculation was too complicated and fe ridden (Section 1004.08, p age 7); and questioned definition of a "rain event;" and undue burdens placed on h omeowners to provide the required data. Ms. McGehee concurred w ith the suggestion of Ms. Barsel that the document be e revised further after toni discussion and public comment; and be brought forward as a clean docum to the incoming City Council for further discussion and consideration prior to taking action. Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephen's Street Ms. Dushin recognized Mr. Trudgeon and thanked him for his response and rec- ommended language revisions announced tonight that addressed a number of her concerns that she had previously provided in writing, through public comment be- fore the Planning Commission and City Council, and in discussions with staff. Ms. Dushin advised that she had spoken with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Duluth Office; and their representative had opined that "nuis- ance" language was actually useful for cities, allowing them to accommodate spe- cific neighborhoods and uses, particularly those too small to be regulated by a state agency (e.g. outside wood stoves). Ms. Dushin opined that there was a dan- ger in relying on state agencies and state standards; and noted that the MPCA had offered their input on additional modifications if requested. Use of Performance Standards versus Conditional Use criteria Ms. Dushin read Chapter 1001.02 Environmental Standards, Compliance Stan- dards for clarification; and questioned if that was new or just for building permits; and whether this was coming from Performance Standards or applicable to some- thing not in use. Ms. Dushin noted, specific to the proposed asphalt plant, the City had been fortunate that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) had 4111 been in process; however, she noted that not everything would have an EAW and