Laserfiche WebLink
regraded 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 />philosophical issue when the real cost came into play, and depending on the site <br />and property owners (e.g. commercial and/or residential parcels). Mr. Freihammer <br />noted that costs could be minimal unless the site was already constrained. <br />Mr. Culver noted that most commercial properties in Roseville didn't have enough <br />green space for a rain garden, and while some could install one or more, there was <br />a cost involved. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted that most commercial property <br />owners would then be forced to pay or bauild an underground system without <br />another option available. <br />Chair Cihacek responded that it was fine to start mitigation efforts, but again at this <br />time there wasn't enough specificity as to what that mitigation may involve; and <br />whether that meant increasing permit costs to provide technical assistance as <br />outlined in Option 3, rewrite Option 1 with a definition of "aggregate base," or <br />Option 2 using the current policy if the base is exposed. <br />Mr. Freihammer suggested one way to rewrite policy would be to have size as a <br />trigger, and the amount of disturbance (e.g. gravel or native soil). <br />In other words, Chair Cihacek noted the need to find the sweet spot for city <br />intervention. <br />Member Wozniak opined that he didn't think it should be based on cost, but the <br />actual trigger instead, and spoke in support of Option 2. If the goal for "aggregate <br />base" is to improve drainage citywide, Member Wozniak stated that he had no <br />problem with the property owner paying those costs, since he considered it their <br />responsibility to pay for mitigation if their stormwater runoff is causing the <br />problem. Member Wozniak used a recent example of flooding seen in the city that <br />damaged and cost considerable cost to adjacent or area homeowners, through no <br />fault of their own due to the impervious surface of a parking lot in that area. <br />Member Wozniak noted that the city currently had strict requirements for <br />residential properties and limits that could be done on a residential lot as far as <br />making improvements based on square footage and impervious coverage; opining <br />that the same consistent application should be for commercial and/or larger parking <br />lots without consideration of costs. <br />Member Seigler supported requirements to address large, but not small, parking <br />lots. <br />Member Wozniak suggested the caveat that opportunities for improvement be taken <br />as they become available. <br />Page 15 of 17 <br />