2017-03-28_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9, February 28, 2017 367 like to move in concert with the watershed districts as well as any other 368 authorities to make it easier to manage things from a regulatory perspective rather 369 than having four different sets of rules. Therefore, Mr. Freihammer suggested the 370 first step may be for a listening session of those parties to inform a process 371 moving forward. 372 373 Member Wozniak noted that several individual members of the PWETC were 374 open to a more aggressive policy; but also noted the need to defer to watershed 375 districts as the experts in the field, questioning why the city would choose to take 376 a leadership role outside of their expertise. Theref e, Member Wozniak 377 suggested that the city work with them to seek a gressive stance in 378 controlling stormwater, which should help achieve goal or at least move in 379 that direction. 380 Public Com e 381 An unidentified speaker (off microphone) i u ience s ted incentives in 382 addressing residential driveways by insta ion o rain gardens w *aiseed er possible 383 to help mitigate drainage on their pro The eaker stated thproperty 384 was over the 35% impervious coverage permit ar he speaker that he 385 had considered putting in a rain garden to capture more, but at this time didn't do 386 so as their was no incentiveencourage him to do anything. However, if there 387 was an incentive for residents, eaker opined that would be helpful, whether 388 or not it was feasible for the cit 389 Oe 390 In response to the unidentifie3sk u rks Director Culver advised 391 that the city ha nted water ere program several years ago; but 392 clarified tho wasn essended for residential properties since their 393 annual stormwater man ment fees winimal to begin with (approximately 394 $44/year). However, for c mmerci properties, Mr. Culver reported that 395 stormwater management mitiAcould result in hundreds of dollars in fee 396 credits, thus creating more of an incentive; thus the city's implementation of the 397 credit program for commercial Pproperties installing a BMP to make the project 398 larger than neede o obtain redit for the portion not required and as an incentive. 399 While the city had emptEto incent BMP's in the past, Mr. Culver agreed with 400 the speaker that te wasn't much incentive for residential properties. Mr. 401 Culver noted that ne concern he had with rain gardens as a mitigation for 402 residential',Noperties currently over their maximum 30% impervious coverage 403 was that at some point in the future, property owners may change and the new 404 owner may dot have the same interests in maintaining the BMP. Even though the 405 city has a five-year inspection process for BMP's to ensure their maintenance, Mr. 406 Culver noted that a lot could happen during that timeframe that impacted the 407 overall city stormwater drainage system. With commercial properties, Mr. Culver 408 noted that they had more resources to maintain stormwater management systems. 409 410 7. Items for Next Meeting — March 28, 2017 411