My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
2016-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2017 12:23:39 PM
Creation date
1/25/2017 12:23:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/25/2016
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Member Seigler noted 43 and 4 as well and the need to link them to city code or <br /> ordinance. <br /> Mr. Freihammer and Ms. Nestingen duly noted that suggestion for a direct <br /> reference as applicable;even though most ordinances were included in the appendix <br /> to the plan. <br /> If not already addressed, Chair Cihacek suggested the addition of Strategy 46 to <br /> enforce it as a mechanism for increased code enforcement as it related to wetlands <br /> and any new structures in those areas. <br /> Mr. Freihammer noted old things were grandfathered in, but the goal could ensure <br /> that new changes were adequately captured and addressed. <br /> Chair Cihacek opined that many problems result from those properties <br /> grandfathered in; and suggested that they be identified and specifically located; and <br /> if a uniform ordinance addressed everything or various ordinances here and in other <br /> areas, or if it consisted of a series of regulations, and how that was addressed. Chair <br /> Cihacek further opined that the current inventory and categories, especially those <br /> grandfathered properties,needed to be re-evaluated to ensure uniform enforcement. <br /> At the request of the PWETC, Ms. Nestingen advised that the plan update would <br /> include an acronym section to make it more user-friendly. <br /> Goal 3 —Groundwater Protection <br /> At the request of Member Heimerl, Mr. Johnson addressed groundwater elevation <br /> versus the quality of groundwater in aquifers and wellhead protection areas; a few <br /> remaining abandoned wells in NE Roseville and needing monitoring and wellhead <br /> protection consideration, especially those not yet capped. <br /> If only those two specific situations are being monitored, Chair Cihacek asked how <br /> Item 41 in this goal is even relevant. <br /> Ms. Nestingen responded that the reference in 41 was intended to determine <br /> infiltration practices and which BMP's would be appropriate in a certain areas. Ms. <br /> Nestingen advised that cities generally regulate to avoid infiltration practices in <br /> wellhead protection areas if considered vulnerable, or there was a potential for <br /> contaminating source water for drinking wells. However, Ms. Nestingen noted this <br /> wasn't applicable to the majority of Roseville. <br /> Chair Cihacek sought clarification as to whether it needed to be addressed as a <br /> bullet point or elsewhere since it wasn't applicable to most of Roseville. <br /> Given the wellhead protection area, Member Wozniak opined it should remain. <br /> Page 14 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.