2017-02-28_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15, January 24, 2017 philosophical issue when the real cost came into play, and depending on the site and property owners (e.g. commercial and/or residential parcels). Mr. Freihammer noted that costs could be minimal unless the site was already constrained. Mr. Culver noted that most commercial properties in Roseville didn't have enough green space for a rain garden, and while some could install one or more, there was a cost involved. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted that most commercial property owners would then be forced to pay or build an underground system without another option available. Al Chair Cihacek responded that it was fine to start tion efforts, but again at this time there wasn't enough specificity as to w t itigation may involve; and whether that meant increasing permit costs rovi hnical assistance as outlined in Option 3, rewrite Option 1 wit i ition o regate base," or Option 2 using the current policy if the b is exposed. Mr. Freihammer suggested one way To r trigger, and the amount of disturbance (e.g. In other words, Chair intervention. d be to WVe size as a soil). the need IWd the sweet spot for city Member Wozniak o fined that he n' in ld be based on cost, but the actual trigger i spoke in port of O on 2. If the goal for "aggregate base" is to ' rove ge citywi Member Wozniak stated that he had no problem rope owner payi ose costs, since he considered it their responsibility t ation i eir stormwater runoff is causing the prob embe ma `' cent example of flooding seen in the city t ama cos siderable cost to adjacent or area homeowners, through fault of the n du impervious surface of a parking lot in that area. ber Wozni oted t the city currently had strict requirements for re tial propert and emits that could be done on a residential lot as far as make proveme based on square footage and impervious coverage; opining that the e co stent application should be for commercial and/or larger parking to t consideration of costs. Member Sei ler supported requirements to address large, but not small, parking lots. Member Wozniak suggested the caveat that opportunities for improvement be taken as they become available. Member Seigler noted differences in bringing a parking lot up to its original condition, while at some point mill and overlay would no longer be sufficient if and when some parts were worn away and gravel was showing.