2010-07-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 07, 2010 Page 15 recognizing the of zoning throughout the City, Mr. Blumster opined that he and 703 his neighbors felt trapped in their concerns, with no one listening to attempts to 704 preserve runoff, green space, and the integrity of their neighborhood. 705 Charlie Disney 706 Mr. Disney provided a history of past subdivisions in their neighborhood; and 707 reiterated his concern that another townhome development would be approved in 708 the neighborhood, specifically mentioning the Art Mueller proposal on Acorn 709 Road. 710 Ruth Blumster 711 Ms. Blumster questioned who was in charge of developing parks and bikeways; 712 and Mr. Paschke responded that the Parks and Recreation Department was 713 currently in the process of completing their Master Plan process for park facilities 714 and amenities. 715 Chair Doherty closed the Public Hearing at approximately 9:25 p.m. 716 Minor Subdivision and Lot Split 717 At the request of Chair Doherty, Mr. Paschke noted that, since 1959 when the 718 originally zoning ordinance originated, this area had been under pressure, with 719 some subsequent lot splits and others remaining as originally platted. Mr. 720 Paschke clarified the Art Mueller proposal/Orchard Project and noted that the 721 proposal’s filing date had expired and apparently Mr. Mueller had chosen not to 722 go through the planning process and record the plat. Mr. Paschke advised that 723 there were two other areas within that neighborhood, one on Acorn Road mid- 724 block and another on the opposite corner from those lots described by Mr. 725 Disney, that consisted of one large lot that could be subdivided into three (3) lots 726 respectively. Mr. Paschke noted that the City had seen many changes over the 727 last eleven (11) years of his tenure with the City, with homes built through the 728 approval of minor subdivisions and lot splits. However; Mr. Paschke noted that 729 those cases were heard directly at public hearing at the City Council level. 730 Discussion among staff and Commissioners included the impervious threshold 731 concerns, with Mr. Paschke advising that existing storm water management 732 plans were designed around a 30% impervious coverage calculation for single- 733 family, residential lots, and would remain so, with the 50% addressing total 734 improved area on a lot, not all of which would be impervious, with homeowners 735 making application for a Building Permit required to account for total impervious 736 coverage on their lot and how they proposed to mitigate exceeding that 737 coverage. 738 Mr. Lloyd summarized the technical calculation for determining runoff based on 739 the design of the City’s storm water infrastructure capability and capacity; with 740 mitigation options administered by staff within City and Watershed District 741 parameters, and any variations in that mitigation addressed by staff as delegated 742 by the City Council. 743 Further discussion included public perception and confusion on the 30% 744 impervious coverage requirements without significant mitigation and how to 745 clarify or communicate those requirements; expectations of property owners for 746 their property and adjacent properties and any impacts of those properties to 747 their own parcel; staff’s rationale in recommending the 50% total improved area 748 percentage allowing greater flexibility than current language and fewer 749 administrative deviations or variances coming forward; and attempts to clarify 750 goals in the guiding documents to allow those flexibilities, with some thought to 751 be given to further clarification of that language. 752 Additional discussion included the ability to change the percentage of lot 753 improvements from 50% in the future if deemed appropriate due to recognition of 754 any unintended consequences; understanding, defining, and communicating 755