CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1566 changes over the last eleven (11) years of his tenure with the City, with homes built through the 41 110 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 approval of minor subdivisions and lot splits. However; Mr. Paschke noted that those cases were heard directly at public hearing at the City Council level. Discussion among staff and Commissioners included the impervious threshold concerns, with Mr. Paschke advising that existing storm water management plans were designed around a 30% impervious coverage calculation for single family, residential lots, and would remain so, with the 50% addressing total improved area on a lot, not all of which would be impervious, with homeowners making application for a Building Permit required to account for total impervious coverage on their lot and how they proposed to mitigate exceeding that coverage. Mr. Lloyd summarized the technical calculation for determining runoff based on the design of the City's storm water infrastructure capability and capacity; with mitigation options administered by staff within City and Watershed District parameters, and any variations in that mitigation addressed by staff as delegated by the City Council. Further discussion included public perception and confusion on the 30 impervious coverage requirements without significant mitigation and how to clarify or communicate those requirements; expectations of property owners for their property and adjacent properties and any impacts of those properties to their own parcel; staff's rationale in recommending the 50 total improved area percentage allowing greater flexibility than current language and fewer administrative deviations or variances coming forward; and attempts to clarify goals in the guiding documents to allow those flexibilities, with some thought to be given to further clarification of that language. Additional discussion included the ability to change the percentage of lot improvements from 50% in the future if deemed appropriate due to recognition of any unintended consequences; understanding, defining, and communicating impervious coverage at 30% versus total lot coverage by other structures or amenities at a total of 50 structure expansion without expanding its footprint; and cases being heard at the Planning Commission or Variance Board indicating that the lot coverage percentage was too low. After further discussion, members concurred that a 50 lot coverage limit was suitable. At the request of Member Boerigter, Mr. Paschke advised that newly created or expanded standards would be part of the zoning code rewrite, with supplemental regulations all in one location in the code. Further discussion included current code and proposed code related to calculation and more clarifying terminology for up to three (3) accessory structures, or a maximum of 864 square feet for garden shed requirements. Commissioners were in consensus in correcting public comment related to the amount of time spent to -date on this zoning code rewrite, with the Consultant having begun working with staff in November of 2009, and the Planning Commission consistently hearing various iterations and 1603 drafts of the code since February of 2010, following preliminary discussions and input provided 1604 to staff and the consultant before the public hearing.