Laserfiche WebLink
updated based on that discussion and individual comments and preferences of the <br />PWETC at that time. Mr. Johnson noted that one of those updates included the <br />definition of "land disturbance," using the existing policy for reference, and new <br />option 1 and 2 respectively less and more restrictive in nature. Mr. Johnson noted <br />that Option 1 was similar to the current policy, but provided more clarification; and <br />Option 2 was more restrictive and required treatment when parking lot base <br />material was exposed (e.g. through BMP installation or via payment in to the city's <br />stormwater management fund) as applicable. Mr. Johnson reviewed Option 3 that <br />would have the city potentially providing support (e.g. design and/or financial <br />assistance) for installation of BMP's. <br />Mr. Johnson noted that tonight's presentation sought additional PWETC feedback <br />to move forward, including citywide or designated zones for stormwater <br />management standards for parking lots. Mr. Johnson advised that this could mean <br />retaining the status quo with a less restrictive option with clarified language as <br />suggested (Option 1) or to push toward a more restrictive cutting-edge (Option 2) <br />beyond watershed district requirements at this point and thus putting Roseville in a <br />leadership role to push stormwater mitigation for parking lots in the community. <br />Chair Cihacek referenced Figure 19, the chronic flooding issue map; and asked how <br />many such areas could be solved with a more restrictive option. <br />Mr. Johnson responded that none would be solved if using Option 1 either as any <br />points for chronic flooding areas (e.g. Highway 36 at County Road B and at <br />Fairview Avenue) would require multiple projects from Roselawn Avenue to <br />Highway 36 to make any impact. While any parking lot improving stormwater <br />management on their sites wouldn't solve the overall issue, Mr. Johnson advised <br />that it would move one project closer to stopping or alleviating the broader issue. <br />Member Trainor spoke in support of Option 1. <br />Member Seigler stated that he could support Option 2 other than for the problem <br />with "removals;" since if a property owner pulled off the pavement resulting in <br />pollutants on the base needing mitigation, the tendency would be to simply cover it <br />over again to avoid a big and expensive problem. Therefore, Member Seigler spoke <br />in support of Option 1 as being more realistic. <br />Under Member Seigler's scenario, Chair Cihacek suggested going with Option 2 <br />without "removal." <br />However, Member Seigler stated that any oil leakage of any kind would create the <br />mandate for the property owner to remove it resulting in a massive expense. <br />Mr. Johnson clarified that in either case, it would apply whether permit triggered <br />or not. <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />