Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Vanderwall opined that it made sense to treat residential the same no matter <br /> where they lived; and if a larger flow was needed, the source property of the <br /> larger flow should be assessed, not those downstream, but with typical flow. <br /> Other examples were reviewed (e.g. Rainbow, lift stations with greater capacity <br /> needed); and discharge rates taken into consideration. <br /> Member Stenlund opined that, as densities increased with future construction <br /> trends, or as people moved based on the availability of transportation, this <br /> situation would only continue to evolve. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that, when that happened, they are required to ensure the <br /> City's system could handle their needs, and if they were unable to demonstrate <br /> capacity exists, they needed to pay for any upsizing. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that such a development would and could not be successful <br /> without engineering for their needs in advance. <br /> Member DeBenedet opined that he found several areas of potential conflict in the <br /> policy as currently drafted that might open up a situation for their engineer and <br /> attorney to use those inconsistencies as a solution for them. Member DeBenedet <br /> pointed out those areas of his concern (page 2) for sanitary construction (a) and <br /> the exception listed in subd. b, and suggested a similar exception be listed under <br /> c). Member DeBenedet suggested this would further clarify and eliminate any <br /> potential inconsistencies; or rephrase the language similar to that used in the water <br /> main discussion. Member DeBenedet opined that this was more likely the case <br /> with respect to sanitary sewer connections, as pointed out by Member Stenlund, in <br /> overloading the sanitary sewer, but further opined that it did happen, and in the <br /> case of a water main, it would be much less likely to require upsizing beyond 8". <br /> However, since larger buildings need to be sprinklered, Member DeBenedet noted <br /> that it took less water, but provided a higher pressure but would be much less of <br /> an issue if those changes were made. <br /> Regarding storm sewer construction (page 3, line 6), questioned new development <br /> being unable to increase peak runoff, and things that could change with on-site <br /> storage to maintain peak runoff rates, and might serve to increase total volume <br /> and discharge for a longer period and impact downstream storage. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that those situations would be contrary to Roseville rules, as <br /> well as those for the Capitol Region Watershed District and the Rice Creek <br /> Watershed District. <br /> Member DeBenedet questioned if that would be true for significant rain events, <br /> such as 6" or 9" rainfalls; and suggested it be given further consideration by staff. <br /> Page 11 of 16 <br />