Laserfiche WebLink
458 <br />459 <br />460 <br />461 <br />462 <br />463 <br />464 <br />465 <br />466 <br />467 <br />468 <br />469 <br />470 <br />471 <br />472 <br />473 <br />474 <br />475 <br />476 <br />477 <br />478 <br />479 <br />480 <br />481 <br />482 <br />483 <br />484 <br />485 <br />486 <br />487 <br />488 <br />489 <br />490 <br />491 <br />492 <br />493 <br />494 <br />495 <br />496 <br />497 <br />498 <br />499 <br />500 <br />501 <br />502 <br />503 <br />Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Page 11, January 24, 2017 <br />as -needed basis, there remained many segments nearing or exceeding the end of <br />their life span, creating more failures. As a less expensive or impactful way to <br />address some of that stormwater management, Mr. Johnson noted additional best <br />management practices (BMP's) with variable costs as well as larger systems <br />involving pervious pavement or underground containment systems as a larger <br />expense. Due to capacity issues downstream and watershed district requirements, <br />Mr. Johnson advised that the city often couldn't upsize replacement BMP's, often <br />having to replace them at the same size, line the pipes, or pond stormwater. <br />As examples, Mr. Johnson used the Saint Rose of Li <br />Library — Roseville Branch as areas of concern based <br />Mr. Johnson also reviewed several options for <br />throughout the city are redeveloped where curre o <br />be addressed for possible improvements. As of th <br />provided cost comparisons for city undergr ject <br />reconstruction and potential increases a parking 1 <br />annual maintenance costs, with the cit st co frc <br />Fund. Mr. Johnson noted that this repre a sl <br />and cost if not all stormwater management c ad r <br />4�and Ramsey County <br />ric flooding issues. <br />water as parking lots <br />atic runoff areas could <br />tions Mr. Johnson <br />a lete parking lot <br />pro 'n addition to <br />I its Sto r Impact <br />for avail ility of land <br />sed above -ground. <br />As part of the presentation, son reviewe 'on La (no change); Option <br />Lb (no policy change but adde on); Optio quiring treatment when <br />parking lot based material is ex ed BMP ' stallation or payment into <br />the city's Stormwater Impact Fu ) (providing city support for <br />BMP's throu or Finan assista whether or not stormwater <br />requirement e nee ut assistin with the overall drainage system). Also, <br />Mr. John d the ETC to c ' r whether or not to only apply city <br />policy in specia es with e city (e.g. in areas historically known to <br />hav e iss r a ter resources for impaired water bodies); <br />ng dei inimum sizes and how they would be addressed when <br />proved; an ct co r costs per square foot caps as applicable. <br />CNiden <br />sc on efisued regarding costs to a property owner in redoing <br />ths, ng those examples given by Mr. Johnson. That discussion <br />ine ious options and their pros and cons would apply; how staff <br />cmonitor parking lots when open to the base or native soil <br />vriggers in city policy; with the overall goal to be encourage not <br />obut drainage and stormwater management improvements without <br />discouraging those improvements due to unwelcome requirements and additional <br />costs for property owners, as well as the city, along with possibly providing city <br />assistance to encourage needed stormwater improvements. <br />Further discussion included parking lot sizes; how to ensure compliance with <br />policies and requirements; design criteria for stormwater management standards <br />in parking lots depending on their size and location based on a standard trigger of <br />square footage; and types of improvements manageable for those mid-sized and <br />