2017-03-28_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8, February 28, 2017 321 community. With the increasing intensity of storms being realized, Member 322 Wozniak noted the need to do something now, questioning when the next 323 opportunity may arise to look at the issue. Member Wozniak opined that other 324 sources of runoff needed to be taken into account, in other words any impervious 325 surfaces, whether driveways, patios, parking lots or structures, and to spread the 326 word that everyone has a role in controlling that runoff. 327 328 Mr. Johnson clarified that the city had some policies already in place to address 329 impervious coverage on a lot and what did or didn't trigger a permit, particularly 330 on the residential side. However, Mr. Johnson noted tha hile there were some 331 comparisons between residential and commercial pro the extent of that 332 coverage at a higher percentage for commercial and cally on larger lots, made 333 a parking lot situation easier to work with since it o in the open. 334 335 Member Wozniak asked if that meant ther a imit on ential properties 336 but not as much of a limit for commercia operties. 337 00, 338 Mr. Freihammer responded that there w up it on all zo properties 339 throughout the community; but noted th mercial properties were well 340 beyond the maximum 30% itr�pervious covera residential properties. 341 342 Since commercial businesses differed in their pu nd role versus that of 343 residential parcels, Chair Cihacek asked if� er co deration was needed as to 344 whether or not the maximum 85% impe overage was appropriate for 345 commercial si Chair Cihacek s ed that he as leaning toward Option 1, in 346 not wanting ) e more restrictive without a broader more comprehensive policy. 347 Chair Cih opined that part of this �ved watershed district rules to define 348 city policies. In the future, Chair C'Riacek advised that he would entertain 349 dev of a comprehensive set of requirements with the three watershed 350 c s he city. Chair Cihacek questioned if it was fair to not require the 351 rden to be shared ci especially considering that many commercial 352 erties in Ros e are er than the residential properties that had developed 353 a t to and aro the 354 355 Withou ection, hair Cihacek summarized that the PWETC's consensus was 356 for Option with the caveat that they supported further study to develop a more 357 comprehensi way to deal with the stormwater management issue citywide, 358 preferably in the very near future and incorporating additional research by staff as 359 per this discussion. 360 361 Mr. Freihammer thanked the PWETC for their direction; advising that staff would 362 make the definition change to provide further clarification for Option 1; and also 363 work with respective watershed district staff toward the goal of more consistent 364 requirements of a more comprehensive nature whether or not they were more 365 restrictive than those currently in place, and with the city's requirements then 366 matching those restrictions. Mr. Freihammer noted that ideally the city would