2017-03-28_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6, February 28, 2017 229 definition of "land disturbance," using the existing policy for reference, and new 230 option 1 and 2 respectively less and more restrictive in nature. Mr. Johnson noted 231 that Option 1 was similar to the current policy, but provided more clarification; 232 and Option 2 was more restrictive and required treatment when parking lot base 233 material was exposed (e.g. through BMP installation or via payment in to the 234 city's stormwater management fund) as applicable. Mr. Johnson reviewed Option 235 3 that would have the city potentially providing support (e.g. design and/or 236 financial assistance) for installation of BMP's. 237 238 Mr. Johnson noted that tonight's presentation sought addi ' nal PWETC feedback 239 to move forward, including citywide or des gnat s for stormwater 240 management standards for parking lots. Mr. Johns ised that this could mean 241 retaining the status quo with a less restrictive o n clarified language as 242 suggested (Option 1) or to push toward a more r rictiv ng -edge (Option 2) 243 beyond watershed district requirements at t ' nand th ting Roseville in 244 a leadership role to push stormwater miti on for parking lots e community. 245 246 Chair Cihacek referenced Figure 19, the me ing issue m ; and asked 247 how many such areas could be solved with a estrictive option. 248 ` 249 Mr. Johnson responded that nould be solve using Option 1 either as any 250 points for chronic flooding m s (e. ighway 36 at Bounty Road B and at 251 Fairview Avenue) would requir muojects from Roselawn Avenue to 252 Highway 36 to make any impact. While any parking lot improving stormwater 253 management o their sites wouldn' olve the overall issue, Mr. Johnson advised 254 that it woul ve one p ject closer o stopping or alleviating the broader issue. 255 256 Member Traino e i rt of O n 1. 257 258 er tated t t he coul support Option 2 other than for the problem 259 rth "remova , since i erty owner pulled off the pavement resulting in 260 tants on thelba needm mitigation, the tendency would be to simply cover 261 it again to avofa bit and expensive problem. Therefore, Member Seigler 262 spok upport ofon 1 as being more realistic. 00 263 264 Under Me Seigler's scenario, Chair Cihacek suggested going with Option 2 265 without "removal." 266 4 267 However, Member Seigler stated that any oil leakage of any kind would create the 268 mandate for the property owner to remove it resulting in a massive expense. 269 270 Mr. Johnson clarified that in either case, it would apply whether permit triggered 271 or not. 272 273 Member Seigler opined that if the property owner exposed an issue, they would 274 need to pave over it or realize a bigger expense.