10/11/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to provide the manufacturer's specifications and data for the materials being used including water absorption rate, installation procedure and maintenance requirement • guidelines. Hydrologic calculations prepared by a registered civil engineer to demonstrate that post-development peak discharge value for water runoff did not exceed the existing pre-development peak discharge value of the property also were required to be granted the development credit. Pedro provided several scenarios of the new application for development. The average development area credit for use of semi-permeable materials would be approximately 800 square feet to 1200 square feet with a maximum increase of lot coverage of 2%-4% with a lot development area coverage capped at 34%. Pedro offered that the cap would protect the natural features and rural character of the Town. Pedro concluded her presentation by noting the Planning Commission had recommended that the proposed policy be scheduled for a public hearing with a Town-wide notice. Council discussion ensued. Council supported the revisions that had been forwarded by the Planning Commission. Vice Mayor Mordo suggested that a public hearing on the item would be appropriate. Councilmember Warshawsky suggested that for the purpose of clarity examples be included with the proposed policy. City Manager Cahill noted that examples/pictures would be attached to the policy as an exhibit. • OPENED PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Abraham, Viscaino Road, commented that parts of the proposed policy were attractive but suggested that the current policy was still too restrictive and the threat of water run-off from development on sloped lots was grossly exaggerated. He favored adoption of the amendments under discussion but that the policy be revisited for additional modifications to the current limits imposed on sloped lots. Abraham was opposed to more development area being granted to flat lots. Richard Partridge;resident, commented that he had spoken at.the previous City Council review of the development area amendments and had objected to the proposal. He suggested that the revisions were an improvement and he could support their adoption. CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT MOTION MADE AND FAILED: Moved by Mordo and failed due to the lack of a second, to schedule a public hearing for the proposed amendment to the Development Area Policy. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by O'Malley and passed unanimously (5-0) to approve the Development Area Policy amendment as described in Attachment 1 of the staff report(corrected version). • 11 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 11,2007