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