2013-05-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

maintenance/construction vehicles could be staged relative to the location of stormwater management areas, and providing initial performance minimums and expectations in future years and a performance schedule. Vice Chair Stenlund opined that the proposed ration of sand to compost was too much, and based on his professional experience, preferred more sand than compost, since organics could always be added later. Member Stenlund further addressed Sheet 4 of 7 regarding pretreatment best management practices, and expressed concern with the grit chamber and who would clean that out, and if it required a lane closure to do so, where would the equipment be parked for that maintenance. Mr. Schwartz advised that those concerns had already been provided to the developer by staff, asking that they consider a rain garden. Vice Chair Stenlund concurred with the rain garden option with a 4-bay system, allowing for raking from the surface on their cul-de-sac versus Millwood Avenue. Vice Chair Stenlund also questioned snow storage proposals, opining that it should be part of the design. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had also requested that those be set back from the street. Vice Chair Stenlund referenced the dual ditch design of two (2) berms installed at the Rice Street/Highway 36 park and ride facility; one for snow piles and one for snow melt, and suggested a similar application for this development. Vice Chair Stenlund further opined that there was a missing best management practice (BMP) indicating a lack of temporary root control; and asked that the City seek a rigorous BMP as a concept statement, including the specific location for a temporary sediment, noting the difficulties in doing so when the buildings were on top of each other. Vice Chair Stenlund questioned why the developer was not doing rain gardens in front of their own homes, designed as front yard treatment systems as part of the direction the City of Roseville was moving, and providing the developer to design something attractive and functional. Vice Chair Stenlund noted, if the driveway was a 4-bay, there were landscaping elements available (e.g. solid pavers) that wouldn't make the design an obvious or traditional rain garden in a typical sense. Vice Chair Stenlund emphasized the word"rigorous" for the developer's notice and expectations of the City, encouraging them to provide it. Mr. Schwartz advised that, since this was less than a standard cul-de-sac, as requested by staff, the driveways had little area between them for rain gardens, etc. other than potentially at the throat. Mr. Schwartz advised that if homes exceeded impervious requirements, the City required individual lot BMP's, which the developer had already been informed of, but assured the PWETC that staff would include these comments to the developer. Page 12 of 15