Laserfiche WebLink
those situations, whether due to site constraints, contaminated soil, or no available <br /> storm sewer system. <br /> Mr. Johnson noted regional watershed districts had similar requirements for a <br /> fund as developers met certain criteria if no optional treatment methods are <br /> available. Mr. Johnson noted this fund would allow the pooling of management <br /> funds to mitigate drainage issues through a larger area or region that would also <br /> help mitigate stormwater management issues on a particular site paying into the <br /> fund. <br /> Mr. Johnson's presentation highlighted a draft policy, mitigation sequencing, fund <br /> tracking, and next steps. <br /> Mr. Johnson advised that during his tenure with the city, he had only been aware <br /> of 1 or 2 development sites that had no feasible way for the development to <br /> proceed and meet total stormwater management requirements. Mr. Johnson <br /> further advised that the draft policy was intended to address the following: <br /> ■ Provide a stormwater alternative for permitted projects that can't mitigate <br /> onsite; <br /> ■ Provide a stormwater alternative for residential stormwater permits <br /> (ReSWP's) for properties that meet standards set in city code; and <br /> ■ Suggested a proposed rate of$15/cubic foot based on average citywide <br /> stormwater projects to-date. <br /> At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver clarified that this addressed those <br /> properties developed 20-30 years ago or before, and where improvements or <br /> development could not comply with the current impervious surface coverage on <br /> residential properties at 30% or less allowable. At the further request of Member <br /> Seigler, Mr. Johnson affirmed that this draft policy was comparable to those of <br /> surrounding communities. <br /> Member Seigler provided an example of lots similar to his personal situation, <br /> where ramblers built in the 1950's or 1960's with a desire of current owners to <br /> expand the homes and/or garages to a minimum two-stall garage, and questioned <br /> if this proposed policy allowed reasonable recourse for them to do so. <br /> Mr. Culver responded that staff recognized there were numerous older lots were <br /> smaller and didn't meet current city standards due to those prior lot sizes. Unlike <br /> the City of Edina with larger homes but lots wider or deeper, Mr. Culver noted <br /> some of these initial options were developed about ten years ago to address some <br /> of those limitations. <br /> At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson clarified that this proposed policy <br /> applied to residential properties established twenty years ago or before; and <br /> further clarified that commercial lots used design standards for 85% impervious <br /> coverage due to the nature of those businesses. <br /> Page 3 of 19 <br />