Laserfiche WebLink
project did not provide compensation to him, only allowed him to address the <br /> concerns from a philosophical standpoint. For commercial or industrial <br /> properties, Member DeBenedet opined that 4.2" of rain would require massive <br /> and expensive storage, and questioned if anyone would try to capture that for a <br /> 75% credit based on the number of years for any payback to be realized. <br /> Mr. Johnson noted that those were the cases where this program's goal could <br /> provide encouragement, in addition to local watershed grants, making it more <br /> inviting for them. Mr. Johnson reiterated that any BMP or mitigation effort was <br /> not a standalone program, but would allow regional improvements for water <br /> quality concerns. Mr. Johnson clarified that property owners would only receive <br /> credits for areas being captured, not necessarily for their entire property. <br /> As an example, Mr. Johnson reviewed the property having sought stormwater <br /> credits, and by map, reviewed each area on the overall property and the intended <br /> area to be treated, and based on engineering specifications. <br /> Mr. Schwartz spoke to the PWETC's earlier suggestion for periodic <br /> recertification as part of a stormwater credit program. <br /> Mr. Johnson clarified that it was not staff s intent to knock on doors to solicit <br /> BMP's; however, it would serve as another tool for developers to encourage them <br /> to consider low impact design or redo their parking lots to receive credits. <br /> Member Gjerdingen expressed concern that this may drive developers away from <br /> the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. <br /> Chair Vanderwall noted that considerable efforts had already been expended by <br /> the City and/or developers in addressing stormwater management in the Twin <br /> Lakes area; and questioned if this would impact development in that area <br /> negatively if they were interested in locating there. <br /> Mr. Culver opined that, with any new development, there were minimum <br /> stormwater requirements a developer would need to meet (e.g. Walmart <br /> development); but this would allow them to go beyond those basics to obtain <br /> grant monies and/or stormwater credits to assist with their overall development <br /> costs. Whether or not this would prove to be a significant deciding factor or not, <br /> Mr. Culver was unable to address beyond the minimum requirements of the <br /> watershed district and community regardless of where they located. Mr. Culver <br /> further opined that there may be outside factors involved as well, including a <br /> developer's personal philosophy or stewardship efforts. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted the recent example of Maplewood Mall and partnership of the <br /> Mall's ownership and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, with <br /> the project driven by the watershed district, but providing a benefit to everyone in <br /> targeting and meeting goals in certain areas. <br /> Page 7 of 14 <br />