Laserfiche WebLink
492 PWETC members noted some difficulty in identifying specific areas in the <br /> 493 attachments to consider this revised language, asking that staff make sure <br /> 494 appropriate sections are defined in future iterations for easier reference by the <br /> 495 PWETC in their review. <br /> 496 <br /> 497 Mr. Freihammer continued to review other proposed revisions tied to updated <br /> 498 ordinance, including reducing application to erosion control sites of 5,000 square <br /> 499 feet versus the current standard of 10,000 square feet and how that threshold <br /> 500 would be triggered for application of those standards and involving public and <br /> 501 private properties throughout the city. <br /> 502 <br /> 503 Discussion ensued as to whether or not having these considerations under one <br /> 504 permit was feasible and more prudent for ease of use; creation of another tier <br /> 505 within the city fee schedule depending on the threshold and inspection needs as <br /> 506 indicated; and combining one set of rules under one ordinance and one permit <br /> 507 unless significant differentials were involved. <br /> 508 <br /> 509 Mr. Freihammer noted other minor updates suggested by staff for MS4 permit <br /> 510 requirements; but advised that the draft Stormwater Impact Fund(Attachment C) <br /> 511 was a new addition. Mr. Freihammer explained its intent for standards to apply to <br /> 512 development and/or redevelopment projects within the city and how they may or <br /> 513 may not help achieve the water resource goals of the city's Surface Water <br /> 514 Management Plan (SWMP) and maintain compliance with the National Pollutant <br /> 515 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)municipal permit program and its <br /> 516 standards. <br /> 517 <br /> 518 Specifically, Mr. Freihammer noted this would address residential properties at or <br /> 519 over the 30%impervious surface restrictions, and mitigation efforts to address <br /> 520 them or a fee in lieu of that mitigation to serve as a fund to offset those impacts. <br /> 521 Mr. Freihammer reviewed the draft fund as provided, and intent for a one-time fee <br /> 522 applied to a separate fund for use in stormwater projects located within that <br /> 523 particular watershed district in which the properties are located. Mr. Freihammer <br /> 524 opined that this would save staff resources, as they had just started going through <br /> 525 those best management practices (BMP's) such as raingardens that had been <br /> 526 installed five years ago as part of the recertification process. <br /> 527 <br /> 528 Discussion ensued about the various scenarios that may occur under this <br /> 529 requirement, with Member Seigler expressing personal concerns based on his <br /> 530 particular lot among others citywide that may have significant easements <br /> 531 considerably beyond what may ever be required and remaining dormant for years <br /> 532 without the property owners ability to have that area considered as part of their <br /> 533 green space. <br /> 534 <br /> 535 Further discussion included how impervious calculations were done, with staff <br /> 536 clarifying that those calculations included drainage and utility easements; lots <br /> 537 historically over the 30%impervious coverage allotment and already non- <br /> Page 12 of 17 <br />