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