AgdaPkt 2005-11-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~-/9 was still important to add some flexibility in terms of the Use Permit process that would allow someone to provide an alternative way to treat the water before it leaves the site. Commissioner Cronin stated that the presentation talked about front yard and a restriction of minimum 60% being pervious, but there were no requirements for the side yards or the back yards. Mr. Williams stated that this is just an overall requirement for the site and the front yard helps with the permeability issues. Staff also felt there was a secondary reason that in terms of the attractiveness of not paving over the front yard. Sixty percent is just for the front yard setback, the whole property depends on which district you are in. Commissioner Cronin asked why staff was eliminating compact parking spaces. Mr. Williams stated that staff and Traffic Engineer Rich Haygood felt that the compact spaces are not used for compact vehicles and it is difficult to enforce. A number of communities are going towards what is called uni-stall spaces that are somewhat smaller than the standard space and by doing that you would have one uniform minimum size. Commissioner Claire assumed that in existing properties the only thing that will trigger this requirement would be a substantial addition to the house. Mr. Williams stated that is correct with the exception of the minimum pervious area that would be required so that it is not exceeded. Commissioner Claire wanted to know the max lot coverage in an R-1 neighborhood. Mr. Passanisi replied that it is 40%. PUBLIC HEARING MIS (Cronin/Radcliff) move to close public hearing. Motion Passed COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Chair Seybert asked about the front yard issue and how staff is going to deal with drought. At the last drought people paved over their front yards. Mr. Williams replied that there are a number of things that can be done short of paving front yard, in terms of putting gravel or landscaping with rock gardens that would avoid the water use and still be permeable. Chair Seybert stated that it would be helpful when things like this come along cities prepare information for people in these situations so that they can know what there options are. Chair Seybert stated that from a developer's standpoint this should be as easy to explain as possible. He assumed that if there was there is an appeal process would that appeal process comes before the Planning Commission or does it go directly to the City Council. Mr. Passanisi replied that there is a variance process and Use Permit process that are reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and all decisions by the Zoning Administrator can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Williams stated that there are volumes of guidance materials right now and he and City Engineer Lynch will be looking through those and will be weeding out and getting down to something that is very manageable. Page 8 of 9