08-15-06 Council Workshop Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 15, 2006 streeC rights-of-ways, or easemenC areas. It was noted that this would include every land disturbance project that occurs within the City. The next General Requirement section would establish the level at which a project would be required to have a permit. It was noted that regardless of whether or not a permit is required, the general criteria mentioned above would still apply. There was lengthy discussion of Chis permit threshold and its impact on residential properties. It was noted that the recommended NEMO standard is 20,000 square feet of disturbed area while a Watershed permit is required at one acre of disturbed area. The resulting need for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was reviewed and discussed, as was the City's permitting and inspection process from an efficiency standpoint for both the property owner and City staff. The consensus of those present was that a permit and SWPPP would be required for projects of 20,000 square feet of disturbed area or larger. Properties abutting or adjacenC to lakes, streams, and wetlands would be treated as all other properties, that is a permit and SWPPP would be required if a project involved 20,000 square feeC of disturbed area or larger. It was also the consensus that an "Erosion Control Information Sheet" would be developed and attached routinely to all building permits. This sheet will outline the general requirements of silt fencing, street sweeping/cleaning, and stock piles. This sheet would also be available to property owners doing projects that would not require a building permit. It was also suggested that the City Engineer reword the ordinance format so that it states that all projects require a permit and a SWPPP except the following, and then list those that are exempted. The City Engineer reviewed the sections related to SWPPP requirements, specifications, etc. noting some of the minor modifications that he made to the NEMO standards. There was discussion on whether a separate inspection should be established to ensure that silt fencing is installed prior to any disturbance or whether that inspection could occur at the time of a footings inspection. The City Administrator felt the key was the education process and informing developers and property owners of silt fencing requirements and the purpose that sill fencing serves. The Administrator noted that if silC fencing is not installed prior to excavation, the City would be able to 2