Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes <br /> • September 21, 1999 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 1 Bergstrom stated that he would be opposed to the project if all aspects were considered impervi- <br /> 2 ous surfaces. He would prefer decking as opposed to a surface such as brick; however, <br /> 3 Bergstrom would appreciate clarification on the issue of decking being considered an impervious <br /> 4 surface. <br /> 5 Chair Bergstrom introduced Jay Hartman, Public Works Director, and invited him to address the <br /> 6 Commission. <br /> 7 Horst asked Mr. Hartman his opinion whether a deck would be consideredan impervious <br /> 8 surface. Mr. Hartman stated he was not aware of the history of the City's ordinance,but would <br /> 9 agree with Bergstrom that a deck would more amenable as opposed to a hard surface, such as a <br /> 10 patio. <br /> 11 Horst said he would consider exploring options in order to find a.solution for the Doolans, but he <br /> 12 also felt the Commission needed to be sensitive to the City's flooding issues. <br /> 13 Mrs. Doolan clarified that the runoff from their property does not flow into the street, but into <br /> 14 vegetation planted in their front yard. <br /> Horst stated that if the Commission gives consideration to construction of a deck, a utility should <br /> 16 be implemented for directing runoff. <br /> 17 Hatch mentioned the possibility of a pervious surface such as gravel. Mrs. Doolan responded <br /> 18 that would be a viable option. <br /> 19 Horst suggested polling the other Commissioners regarding granting a variance. <br /> 20 Tillman said alternatives should be available for Mr. and Mrs. Doolan, yet still address the <br /> 21 concern about water runoff. <br /> 22 Melsha asked if constructing both a patio and a deck were reasonable because both structures <br /> 23 take up a significant amount of space. <br /> 24 Stille said it is a difficult situation because the structure was built before the Code was in place <br /> 25 and he would like to allow fellow citizens the opportunity to build a deck. On the other hand, the <br /> 26 property is useable in its current condition and there does not appear to be a hardship to justify <br /> 27 granting a variance. Stille wondered if a compromise was possible. <br /> 28 Horst said the discussion should be centered around whether the Planning Commission wishes to <br /> 29 recommend to the City Council that a variance be granted for a noncompliance structure that has <br /> been grandfathered into the Code. Horst mentioned that this issue could arise again with other <br /> 1 homeowners. <br />