Laserfiche WebLink
538 compliant; how a typical resident understood and complied with the calculations <br /> 539 in determining that 30% coverage ratio and whether or not they needed a permit; <br /> 540 lot shapes dictating rights-of-way and easement issues and in defining <br /> 541 public/private space; and lack of standards citywide that create significant <br /> 542 disadvantages for some property owners and significant advantages for others <br /> 543 depending on the time and way they were developed. <br /> 544 <br /> 545 Additional discussion included how to determine the area for the 30%impervious <br /> 546 coverage rule; goal of mitigating runoff, especially in problem areas in the city; <br /> 547 whether a standard percentage should be used or a lower percentage for areas with <br /> 548 high runoff issues. <br /> 549 <br /> 550 After further deliberation, Chair Cihacek noted there was some disagreement <br /> 551 among PWETC members as to the stormwater permit fund and management <br /> 552 standards, with the only apparent area of consensus tonight: moving from the <br /> 553 city's current 1.0" to 1.5"watershed district stormwater volume standard <br /> 554 <br /> 555 With Mr. Freihammer advising that staff was looking for a PWETC <br /> 556 recommendation to allow them to bring all components to the City Council at one <br /> 557 time, Chair Cihacek directed staff to develop a natural conformance standard and <br /> 558 return to the next PWETC meeting with that. Also, Chair Cihacek asked that staff <br /> 559 return with an examination of how runoff calculations related to total lot size and <br /> 560 whether or not the rights-of-way or easement areas could be utilized or how that <br /> 561 could be rectified or through what percentage. <br /> 562 <br /> 563 Member Trainor noted controversy within the state on use of wetland credits; with <br /> 564 Mr. Freihammer advising that the city had utilized that program for the recent <br /> 565 Victoria Street project. <br /> 566 <br /> 567 Member Trainor suggested using that type of program versus an impact fund to <br /> 568 get the difference, recognizing the difference between residents and developers <br /> 569 who may use it as an "out"for due diligence elimination on their part. <br /> 570 <br /> 571 Mr. Freihammer responded that the city currently had a tiered structure for larger <br /> 572 projects provided they can prove mitigation on the site and justify why <br /> 573 stormwater isn't addressed on site. Mr. Freihammer suggested one area in which <br /> 574 this may apply and an example of the exception to the rule with or without this, <br /> 575 was the recent demolition of the former ICO building at the intersection of <br /> 576 Larpenteur Avenue and Rice Street. In city staffs work with the project engineer, <br /> 577 Mr. Freihammer reported that they would have to mitigate their stormwater <br /> 578 management, but there was no adjacent stormwater and it would flow directly to <br /> 579 the street forever. Mr. Freihammer noted it wasn't feasible to install underground <br /> 580 storage as there was no place for infiltration or no pipe discharge as the soils in <br /> 581 that area were not amenable to that. Therefore, Mr. Freihammer noted that site <br /> 582 may be able to mitigate through a fee in lieu of for the portion that could not be <br /> 583 mitigated. <br /> Page 13 of 17 <br />