Laserfiche WebLink
688 <br />689 <br />690 <br />691 <br />692 <br />693 <br />694 <br />695 <br />696 <br />697 <br />698 <br />699 <br />700 <br />701 <br />702 <br />703 <br />704 <br />705 <br />706 <br />707 <br />708 <br />709 <br />710 <br />711 <br />712 <br />713 <br />714 <br />715 <br />716 <br />717 <br />718 <br />719 <br />720 <br />721 <br />722 <br />723 <br />724 <br />725 <br />726 <br />727 <br />728 <br />729 <br />730 <br />731 <br />732 <br />733 <br />Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Page 16, January 24, 2017 <br />Mr. Culver spoke in support of that point noting, as an example, the strip mall at <br />Lincoln and Terrace Drives and parking lot condition. From staff's perspective, <br />Mr. Culver noted the difficulty in determining whether to require regarding based <br />on varying conditions of the pavement in that one situation, and therefore, <br />supporting the need to better define the trigger for when regarding was required <br />and whether it was considered maintenance or an improvement. <br />Member Seigler questioned if smaller strip mall lots had sufficient money for <br />major parking lot improvements if the threshold is lowered; suggesting a <br />commercial property owner in that situation may cho e to simply let their <br />parking lot fall apart completely versus maintainin rom his personal <br />perspective, Member Seigler opined that if they to the gravel base and <br />returned the lot to its original condition, there sho itigation required. <br />Member Thurnau asked staff for their ann <br />each given scenario and those property ners <br />doing the work unknown to the city a ter the <br />Mr. Culver estimated that the annual numb <br />could range from two to twe <br />grate of p lot permits for <br />not seeking it, but simply <br />lot improvement permits <br />Mr. Freihammer opined that th generally d to a limited mill and <br />overlay, while others may be stri g o ng th lots; with some involving <br />a full reconstruction and pulling g t also noted that those full <br />reconstruct pe re few a far be een and usually involved a <br />redevelopm roject oor parkin of design needing redesign. <br />Without hearin n to su ort changing it, Member Heimerl stated <br />his ntinued sup for the current requirements in a consistent <br />er. Wh rec ng that the current language wasn't clear, Member <br />eimerl note refe r staff to formalize that language and what had <br />required o merci roperties to -date rather than increasing or reducing <br />th equirement ut k eping all at the same level. For lots exceeding 5,000 <br />squa t, Mem Heimerl spoke in support of the city working with the <br />propert er o developer on stormwater management. Member Heimerl <br />stated his ce to see the wording better defined to cover that option and <br />keep the pol consistent, unless staff could justify the need to become more <br />aggressive than that current policy. <br />Member Wozniak opined that staff had already provided examples of the need for <br />the city to be more aggressive to address citywide flooding and drainage <br />concerns. <br />Member Heimerl noted that in some cases (e.g. Saint Rose of Lima) a commercial <br />or institutional parking lot drainage problem may be a result of surrounding <br />residential properties and impervious coverage or grading of those lots versus the <br />