2016-05-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

630 631 Chair Cihacek noted that there appeared to be some interest of the PWETC in the 632 concept, but more details were needed on how it was intended to function and 633 ultimately work short- and long-term. 634 635 Member Seigler addressed the majority of Roseville's housing stock and 636 implications to and limits of those properties as a consideration in this stormwater 637 and runoff discussion. Member Seigler cautioned that if the runoff concern got in 638 the way of the city's desire to continue improving its housing stock, or if too 639 many rules were made negating the possibility of improving that existing housing 640 stock, it would not only result in rundown housing, but relocation of residents to 641 other suburbs. Member Seigler opined that if rules were made so housing stock 642 couldn't be improved if the lot sizes were too small, it would kill the city. 643 Member Seigler suggested the standard be what the best water retention that could 644 be achieved for the typical 1,200 square foot home in the suburban metropolitan 645 area. Member Seigler admitted he had concerns with anything that got in the way 646 of that goal; and was not interested in having the city do anything resulting in the 647 decline of its housing stock, his number one concern. 648 649 From staff s perspective, Mr. Freihammer advised that while fees were less 650 impactful, since they were only one-time, upfront fees, the result would be that 651 there would only be the initial cost of installation, with no long-term costs for 652 maintenance. 653 654 At the request of Member Lenz, Mr.Freihammer confirmed that if a home were 655 demolished and new construction put in its place, it would push the reset button 656 and require that new stormwater and environmental requirements were then met. 657 658 Member Seigler opined that anything a homeowner would do would restart the 659 calculations; and reiterated that the city needed to find a way to push the boundary 660 lines out, further opining that current easements were extreme, especially if 661 remaining unused up to this point; or in other words, he supported a"use them or 662 lose them" scenario. 663 664 Mr. Freihammer clarified that while there may not be anything obvious above- 665 ground on rights-of-way, often there were underground utilities. 666 667 Member Seigler reiterated that, no matter a variance could apply, and the area 668 should be included as part of your property, especially if over a 65-year period, as 669 is his personal case, the easement had never been used, opining that the city 670 should lose any ability to use the easement or right-of-way. 671 672 Chair Cihacek noted this issue had come up before, with there being no standard 673 right-of-way easement creating differentials among neighbors for comparison, 674 depending on when their property was platted or when their home was built. 675 Page 15 of 17