Laserfiche WebLink
34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />56 <br />57 <br />58 <br />59 <br />60 <br />61 <br />62 <br />63 <br />64 <br />65 <br />66 <br />67 <br />68 <br />69 <br />70 <br />71 <br />72 <br />73 <br />74 <br />75 <br />76 <br />77 <br />78 <br />Value Procurement Process providing the opportunity to get the best contractor for <br />the job, not just awarding the work to the lowest bidder; and potential revisions to <br />City Code related to permeable pavements as indicated in the case study <br />(Attachment C) and addressing newer technologies. <br />Discussion included how and by whom surface area/impervious surface <br />calculations are made as part of the building permit process and determining <br />whether or not a variance is required; variables from one community to another, <br />and differences for lake properties from typical city-wide parcels. <br />Chair Stenlund supported the City moving forward N any code revisions, as long <br />as a formal, written maintenance plan was put in place to ensure the system would <br />work for any future homeowners inheriting the driveway to keep it functional (e.g. <br />draining) from one owner to another. Chair Stenlund expressed his interest in this <br />particular case study to determine long-term drainage. As part of any written <br />maintenance plan, Chair Stenlund suggested ordinance language provide for <br />vacuuming or other methods to ensure the system continued to permeable, and <br />not become impermeable due to build ine cells <br />' <br />At the request of Member S ler, Mr. Culver reviewed options or existing <br />homeowners who may wish to exceed impervious surface coverage under current <br />regulations, by applying to the City for a stormwater management permit for <br />installation of itigation efforts (e.g. rain barrels, rain gardens, pervious <br />pavements) a r ed and approved or denied on a case by case basis. Mr. <br />Culver advised that this was not an option for new construction, as expectations are <br />that calculations will stay under the proscribed percentage allowed versus <br />remodeling or adding onto an existing structure where every available means was <br />undertaken to slow the rate and quality of water. <br />'ulver clarified new construction options <br />ses requiring five year recertification of <br />ed in managing that certification process <br />to go through that recertification. At the <br />Iver agreed that the City could always <br />)meowners to be aware of and learn how <br />,ertification and to avoid additional costs. <br />s of those properties should also be made <br />aware of what they're buying with those systems, as part of the due diligence <br />involved in the purchase. <br />At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver provided an update on the Lexington <br />Avenue/Highway 36 bridge reconstruction project, with the Minnesota Department <br />of Transportation (MnDOT) currently in the final design stages and planning for an <br />informational meeting yet this fall. Mr. Culver reported that MnDOT was working <br />Page 2 of 16 <br />