Laserfiche WebLink
between accessibility and the investment and pragmatics of reality. Chair <br /> Cihacek stated that was a policy concern from his perspective, and how to adjust <br /> other city policies to maintain good water standards and recognizing there are <br /> significant problems requiring this mitigation and change to what is no longer <br /> working. Chair Cihacek asked if this Impact Fund and policy produced what the <br /> city needed from the perspective of efficiencies and effectiveness of long-term <br /> resources. <br /> Mr. Culver expressed staffs appreciation of tonight's PWETC feedback and the <br /> points raised. Mr. Culver agreed there was a need to balance long- and short-term <br /> benefits including addressing additional impervious on a residential site or finding <br /> a more ideal situation. <br /> Using his personal property as an example, Member Seigler again noted a lot of <br /> residents having extreme easements that couldn't be counted as part of the <br /> impervious calculations, causing them to be over the 30%. Member Seigler <br /> opined it was ridiculous for those residents to pay money into this fund when they <br /> were already willing to spend money to improve Roseville's housing stock and <br /> increase its tax base accordingly. Member Seigler noted the cost for this fund <br /> may be sufficient enough for a resident to avoid improving their housing stock, <br /> and look to another community for a home. Member Seigler further opined if <br /> residents were willing to improve their homes and increase its value, thereby <br /> increasing property taxes, the city should take that additional money to apply to <br /> stormwater relief. Member Seigler reiterated there may be impediments to <br /> additional green space on a property that can't be taken into consideration in <br /> calculating impervious surfaces; and thereby causing homeowners to move <br /> elsewhere. <br /> Mr. Culver recognized the points made by Member Seigler; but clarified this <br /> impervious coverage requirement for mitigation if over 30%is currently in city <br /> code, and was not proposed for changes. Mr. Culver further clarified that this <br /> addressed homes already twenty years old or older and was being enforced <br /> accordingly. Mr. Culver noted this option was an alternative to that requirement, <br /> and an entirely different conversation would be needed if city code standards were <br /> proposed to be changed to remove that requirement altogether. Mr. Culver noted <br /> this proposal was to modify those standards to allow a resident to purchase <br /> credits. <br /> Specific to Member Seigler's personal property situation, Mr. Culver clarified if <br /> there was a utility drainage easement on his property, the square footage of that <br /> easement area was indeed counted in calculations. Mr. Culver noted calculations <br /> are based from neighbor to neighbor parcels or from one property line to another <br /> property line, not between the property line and curb where an easement would be <br /> located. <br /> Page 6 of 19 <br />