2017-01-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Cihacek opined that, at a minimum, that trigger needed to be defined. With that, Mr. Freihammer sought input from the PWETC for how to define it, whether through how much was disturbed (e.g. gravel or native soil) and how to account for the preferred improvement by the applicant versus a reasonable city standard. Mr. Freihammer opined that the goal was to encourage property owners to make drainage improvements versus doing only the minimum (mill and overlay) even when their parking lot may be well beyond that option, but based on cost issues. Chair Cihacek suggested that staff determine a definition of preference from watershed district definitions, and return to the PWETC with cost estimates accordingly; but asked that it be made easier to read and user-friendly for the average lay person compared to the current policy that didn't provide that plain language. Chair Cihacek spoke in support of Option 1 as the minimum, with a definition of "aggregate base" preferably with an illustration to help with the definition and understanding. Chair Cihacek suggested including that follow-up discussion for the February 2017 PWETC meeting to allow further evaluation of additional steps beyond that. If staff decides to accept any watershed definitions, Chair Cihacek stated his need to hear staffs justification in doing so and why they support that definition or policy versus being less restrictive. While unsure at this point if the city needed to rewrite the definition entirely, Chair Cihacek noted the need for staff to provide rationale to do so. Mr. Culver clarified that, one of the reasons staff was seeking input from the PWETC, was that they recognized that the current definition related to stormwater mitigation standards, while proving more beneficial to the overall stormwater system, presented a burden to businesses, thus staffs identification of the pros and cons for each option as part of tonight's presentation. Mr. Culver advised that it was difficult for staff to make a recommendation with caveats that benefited the overall system and reduced flooding, in consideration of whether or not the burden was justified to those businesses. With Chair Cihacek still emphasizing the need for staff to quantify that, Mr. Culver responded that this had been the attempt in citing the various examples tonight. Chair Cihacek stated that he was supportive of Option 2, but was still unclear what staff was asking for in the first place; and while some elements were already in place for Option 3, dedication of more funding was a different issue, but he would need more information to consider that option seriously. For instance, Chair Cihacek asked what was meant by "burden" since there were many ways the city could require mitigation and variable costs as well. Mr. Freihammer focused on whether or not to require mitigation, such as if following watershed district requirements there would be no mitigation if you Page 14 of 17