CC_Minutes_2016_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2016 Page 26 and any storm water BMPs put in place will require a maintenance agreement for the duration of ten years. Councilmember Willmus asked Mr. Koland whether he was familiar with and in agreement with all four conditions as detailed in the RCA. Mr. Koland stated he is in agreement if the City makes him do so. His position is still that it is not re- quired by City Code but he is willing to do this. Councilmember McGehee stated it was her understanding that the BMP runs with the land and is inspected every five years. Mr. Freihammer stated that is correct. Councilmember McGehee stated she does not understand the statement made that Rice Creek Watershed does something for ten years. Mr. Culver stated the City’s five-year requirement would supersede that term. He explained that Rice Creek has its own requirements, policies, and practices with maintenance agreements if they partially fund a BMP through a grant. In addition, if the development is large enough, the maintenance agreement is then with the Rice Creek Watershed and not the City. However, the City has several requirements that are triggered prior to the Watershed’s requirements and in those cases, when the maintenance agreement is with the City, the City’s recertification requirements would be ap- plied. Councilmember McGehee asked whether the City’s requirements would be the dominant. Mr. Culver answered in the affirmative. Councilmember McGehee noted the memorandum indicates if the impervious surface is less than 30%, they don’t have to do it, which causes her considerable difficulty since it appears to be in legalistic terms at this point. She asked how staff determines the correct size of the BMP. Mr. Culver explained when the City requires BMPs, the standards are to handle rainfall for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year rain events. That calculation would be based on the impervious surface being added and that amount of water would have to be mitigated by BMPs. Councilmember McGehee noted some residents talked about standing water in the central area and staff has previously indicated there is a problem in that area and they couldn’t solve that problem. She asked staff if they maintain that same posi- tion that the problem, whether an impervious basin or whatever, is not within the City’s foreseeable capacity to solve. Mr. Culver stated if talking about the prob- lem of water flooding in the backyard area of the inner circle up to the 957 eleva- tion on a recurring basis, that problem is outside of the scope of this in terms of being able to solve it. He stated staff will work with the Watershed and other agencies over a long period of time to continue to address it. Councilmember McGehee asked for staff’s opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Willis about the 957 elevation storage line and whether building within that area results in reducing the area for retention. She noted the goal, since this can’t be fixed, is to assure a 100-year flood will not result in these residents having to buy FEMA insurance or have their homes flooded. Mr. Culver stated the City would