My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 10:34:29 AM
Creation date
10/6/2016 9:31:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, September 12, 2016 <br />Page 26 <br /> <br />and any storm water BMPs put in place will require a maintenance agreement for <br />the duration of ten years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Willmus asked Mr. Koland whether he was familiar with and in <br />agreement with all four conditions as detailed in the RCA. Mr. Koland stated he <br />is in agreement if the City makes him do so. His position is still that it is not re- <br />quired by City Code but he is willing to do this. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee stated it was her understanding that the BMP runs with <br />the land and is inspected every five years. Mr. Freihammer stated that is correct. <br />Councilmember McGehee stated she does not understand the statement made that <br />Rice Creek Watershed does something for ten years. Mr. Culver stated the City’s <br />five-year requirement would supersede that term. He explained that Rice Creek <br />has its own requirements, policies, and practices with maintenance agreements if <br />they partially fund a BMP through a grant. In addition, if the development is <br />large enough, the maintenance agreement is then with the Rice Creek Watershed <br />and not the City. However, the City has several requirements that are triggered <br />prior to the Watershed’s requirements and in those cases, when the maintenance <br />agreement is with the City, the City’s recertification requirements would be ap- <br />plied. Councilmember McGehee asked whether the City’s requirements would be <br />the dominant. Mr. Culver answered in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee noted the memorandum indicates if the impervious <br />surface is less than 30%, they don’t have to do it, which causes her considerable <br />difficulty since it appears to be in legalistic terms at this point. She asked how <br />staff determines the correct size of the BMP. Mr. Culver explained when the City <br />requires BMPs, the standards are to handle rainfall for the 2-year, 10-year, and <br />100-year rain events. That calculation would be based on the impervious surface <br />being added and that amount of water would have to be mitigated by BMPs. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee noted some residents talked about standing water in the <br />central area and staff has previously indicated there is a problem in that area and <br />they couldn’t solve that problem. She asked staff if they maintain that same posi- <br />tion that the problem, whether an impervious basin or whatever, is not within the <br />City’s foreseeable capacity to solve. Mr. Culver stated if talking about the prob- <br />lem of water flooding in the backyard area of the inner circle up to the 957 eleva- <br />tion on a recurring basis, that problem is outside of the scope of this in terms of <br />being able to solve it. He stated staff will work with the Watershed and other <br />agencies over a long period of time to continue to address it. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee asked for staff’s opinion on the issue raised by Ms. <br />Willis about the 957 elevation storage line and whether building within that area <br />results in reducing the area for retention. She noted the goal, since this can’t be <br />fixed, is to assure a 100-year flood will not result in these residents having to buy <br />FEMA insurance or have their homes flooded. Mr. Culver stated the City would <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.