Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission Discusses Impervious‑coverage Variances and Five‑lot Subdivision With Stormwater Detention
Summary
Staff presented variances to increase impervious coverage and reduce setbacks for a five‑lot subdivision, plus a request to reduce a stream buffer for grading a stormwater detention facility; staff recommended conditional approval after correcting earlier site‑plan errors and adding replanting and engineering confirmation requirements.
Planning staff reviewed a five‑lot subdivision and several associated variances, including reduced setbacks, increased impervious coverage using a 3,500‑square‑foot allowance methodology, and stream‑buffer reductions to allow grading for a stormwater detention facility.
Staff said four lots would be configured for single‑family homes, with one large parcel for detention. The request includes reducing the stream buffer from 75 feet to 25 feet for construction grading on the detention facility and setting front/average/rear setbacks (to 20 feet/20 feet/30 feet) to make the lots buildable. Staff presented a corrected site plan showing the detention facility sized correctly and said prior mapping errors and encroachment indications had been removed.
On impervious coverage, staff explained the applicant used a standard approach the department regularly applies to undersized lots — allowing up to 3,500 square feet of coverage to avoid a disproportionate penalty for undersized lots. A commissioner sought to understand whether combining all five lots for coverage calculations would materially change the percentage; staff replied that, mathematically, the total could be under 35% when aggregated because one lot is large and vacant.
Conditions recommended by staff include constructing the detention facility, required stormwater maintenance and a maintenance agreement, and replanting buffer standards on the detention parcel after construction. Staff also added a preconstruction condition requiring a licensed engineer's letter confirming erosion and sediment controls before preconstruction inspection.
Commissioners also discussed procedural items — reopening public comment for limited time, applicant Q&A materials filed since the last hearing, and confirming that corrected materials were submitted. No formal vote was recorded in the work session transcript.
Provenance: topicintro SEG 926; topfinish SEG 1100
