| It seemed to the Chair, that the selected ordinance amendment had more of an |
|
| administrative flavor rather than a public hearing flavor. Mr. Staran's perception was |
|
| the same. The response from city staff was that the administration has handled this |
|
| administratively for some time. The proposed ordinance is being brought forward to |
|
| conform ordinance with current practice as opposed to changing practice in order to |
|
| conform to the ordinance. Mr. Staran referenced a memo from City Engineer Jim |
|
| Dietrick explaining the difference between the Elro situation and that of Pheasant Ring. |
|
| The memo indicated that the excess soils removed from the Pheasant Ring Subdivision |
|
| site were done entirely as part of the development process and were done fairly |
|
| quickly, as distinguished from Elro which involved some mining activity as a separate |
|
| operation apart from the actual development of the site and was a longer-term project. |
|
| Mr. Staran read from a memo from DPS Director Tom Dohr which stated that the |
|
| soil excavation permit requirement has been applied only when it is beyond the |
|
| activity to develop the site, for example, a mining operation separate from |
|
| development of the property or processing the material on site. Otherwise, there |
|
| would be a soil excavation and temporary construction activity permit for every |
|
| project that goes forward. Talk about bureaucracy! Elro is really an extreme |
|
| case. It appears that the lion's share of activities are smaller scale and generally |
|
| inconsequential and are handled administratively through the land improvement |
|
| process. Of course, from time-to-time there is discussion and deliberation by the |
|
| Planning Commission as part of the site plan or plat approval process as to how a |
|
| development activity will actually take place. Technically, passing the proposed |
|
| ordinance amendment would codify what has been the administrative practice -- |
|
| which has not been entirely consistent with the letter of the existing ordinance. There |
|
| is a potential trade-off where a fairly massive excavation activity could occur with site |
|
| development that would not require a separate process and public hearing, but rather |
|
| would have to be dealt with by the Planning Commission as part of the development |
|
| process, which may or may not include a public hearing. To a large extent that would |
|
| place the primary responsibility with the City Engineer and his staff to address those |
|
| types of issues for the Planning Commission -- which they apparently are doing now |
|
| unbeknownst to the Planning Commission. |
|
