Loading...
08/05/1991 - 6:10 pm PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING August 5, 1991 A public information meeting was held at the City Hall Annex with the following members present: Commission Members present: Sue Berfield Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager William C. Baker Public Works Director Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Stormwater Retrofit Bill Baker, Public Works Director, opened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. He stated the purpose of this meeting was to provide information regarding revisions to the stormwater ordinance. He reviewed the manner in which volume of stormwater is calculated and gave examples. He stated in recent times, people redeveloping a site would generally cause less runoff than the current development and therefore, no detention was required. He stated that in a manner of speaking the development then circumvented the stormwater retention rules twice. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has indicated the City must address this issue. He reviewed the proposal stating the new rule will apply to the extent to which the property is redeveloped. He indicated in some places it will be difficult to provide stormwater detention and therefore, payment in lieu of retention facilities will be allowed. He gave examples of how the new runoff coefficient would be determined. He indicated the proposal includes no threshold for triggering the mechanism, it would apply in proportion to the development and there has been a request to exclude downtown. He emphasized that excluding downtown would have nothing to do with the stormwater utility fee. That would still be due. Concerns were expressed regarding what constituted redevelopment. Discussion ensued regarding when the ordinance would take effect and it was stated that if interior remodeling is done or a building is built back to its existing footprint, no retention would be required. An example was posed that if a 2,000 sq.ft. building was expanded to 4,000 sq.ft., what would be impacted. It was indicated detention for the additional 2,000 sq.ft. would have to be provided. A question was raised regarding payment in lieu of providing the detention and it was indicated this has to do with practicality and many have been done this way. Additional examples of what would and would not trigger the ordinance were discussed. A question was raised regarding on what the 3.7 coefficient for removal and redevelopment is based. Mr. Baker indicated 3.7 was halfway between the co-efficient for virgin land and developed land. A question was raised regarding the detention pond in downtown with it being indicated the pond is not as large as had originally been anticipated as the decision was made not to tear down the existing grocery store. A question was raised regarding whether or not the requirement for detention ponds was a recent development. It was indicated it was not. A concern was expressed regarding Calvary Baptist Church having had to have provided a detention pond. It was indicated this was due to the expansion to their building. In response to a question, it was indicated the State could still indicate they did not agree with the City's recommendation. A question was raised regarding whether or not the stormwater utility fee would increase if downtown was exempted from the ordinance. It was indicated if the downtown were exempt, and then everything rebuilt, it could cause difficulties. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.