Laserfiche WebLink
596 <br />597 <br />598 <br />599 <br />600 <br />601 <br />602 <br />603 <br />604 <br />605 <br />606 <br />607 <br />608 <br />609 <br />610 <br />611 <br />612 <br />613 <br />614 <br />615 <br />616 <br />617 <br />618 <br />619 <br />620 <br />621 <br />622 <br />623 <br />624 <br />625 <br />626 <br />627 <br />628 <br />629 <br />630 <br />631 <br />632 <br />633 <br />634 <br />635 <br />636 <br />637 <br />638 <br />639 <br />640 <br />641 <br />Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Page 14, January 24, 2017 <br />With that, Mr. Freihammer sought input from the PWETC for how to define it, <br />whether through how much was disturbed (e.g. gravel or native soil) and how to <br />account for the preferred improvement by the applicant versus a reasonable city <br />standard. Mr. Freihammer opined that the goal was to encourage property owners <br />to make drainage improvements versus doing only the minimum (mill and <br />overlay) even when their parking lot may be well beyond that option, but based <br />on cost issues. <br />Chair Cihacek suggested that staff determine a definition of preference from <br />watershed district definitions, and return to the PWE with cost estimates <br />accordingly; but asked that it be made easier to rea er-friendly for the <br />average lay person compared to the current policy didn't provide that plain <br />language. Chair Cihacek spoke in support of O n the minimum, with a <br />definition of "aggregate base" preferably with illus n to help with the <br />definition and understanding. Chair Cihac sted in . g that follow-up <br />discussion for the February 2017 PWET eeting to allow fu evaluation of <br />additional steps beyond that. If staff es to a ept anywater finitions, <br />Chair Cihacek stated his need to hear sta stiff n in doing so d why they <br />support that definition or policy versus bein estrictive. While unsure at this <br />point if the city needed to reite the definitio rely, Chair Cihacek noted the <br />need for staff to provide ration do so. <br />Mr. Culver clarified that, one <br />PWETC, was that the recogni. <br />mitigation staCL <br />system, pre band cons fit was difficulf <br />staff s seeking input from the <br />c inition related to stormwater <br />re be cial to the overall stormwater <br />s, thus staffs identification of the pros <br />presentation. Mr. Culver advised that <br />iendation with caveats that benefited the <br />n consideration of whether or not the <br />asizing the need for staff to quantify that, Mr. <br />been the attempt in citing the various examples <br />Chair Cih ed that he was supportive of Option 2, but was still unclear <br />what staff wa sking for in the first place; and while some elements were already <br />in place for ption 3, dedication of more funding was a different issue, but he <br />would need more information to consider that option seriously. For instance, <br />Chair Cihacek asked what was meant by "burden" since there were many ways <br />the city could require mitigation and variable costs as well. <br />Mr. Freihammer focused on whether or not to require mitigation, such as if <br />following watershed district requirements there would be no mitigation if you <br />regarded the entire parking lot and therefore no mitigation cost. However, Mr. <br />Freihammer reiterated the need to know what that trigger was, which was in part a <br />