Laserfiche WebLink
365 <br />366 <br />367 <br />368 <br />369 <br />370 <br />371 <br />372 <br />373 <br />374 <br />375 <br />376 <br />377 <br />378 <br />379 <br />380 <br />381 <br />382 <br />383 <br />384 <br />385 <br />386 <br />387 <br />388 <br />389 <br />390 <br />391 <br />392 <br />393 <br />394 <br />395 <br />396 <br />397 <br />398 <br />399 <br />400 <br />401 <br />402 <br />403 <br />404 <br />405 <br />406 <br />407 <br />408 <br />409 <br />410 <br />Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Page 9, April 25, 2017 <br />In response, Mr. Johnson had prepared a summary presentation of the three <br />watershed districts involved in Roseville, with each of their missions to manage, <br />improve and protect local water resources. Mr. Johnson identified those three <br />agencies as: Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey -Washington Metro <br />Watershed District, and Capitol Region Watershed District. Mr. Johnson advised <br />that the biggest driver was the city's MS4 permit system (Municipal Separate <br />Stormwater Systems). <br />Mr. Culver asked for a definition of "shoreland" with Mr. Johnson responding <br />that city code defined it as anything within 1,000' of <�vabody (e.g. McCarrons <br />Lake, Lake Owasso, and smaller water bodies in the rea). Mr. Johnson <br />advised that an overlay district was 300' from or ' water levels of a <br />particular lake that required stricter complipervious surface <br />coverage). <br />Mr. Johnson used the Dale Street soccer <br />that Roseville prided itself as a <br />community, parks, water quality, etc. th <br />practices (BMP's) and other mitigation effc <br />ramifications of cleaning up qgntamination <br />Mr. Johnson's presentation i <br />(MPCA) requirements, permits d - <br />trigger based on the number of e; <br />Johnson provi risons of <br />with fees an crows d per acre <br />stormwat osion ntrol, floo <br />and wetland mi o ohnson <br />[ds as an example t area; noting <br />i <br />h a priority tect the <br />s- <br />er control, bes anagement <br />a small upfront cost versus the <br />innesota Control Agency <br />fee Intion <br />escrow funds, and a <br />pi ing a tiered approach. Mr. <br />s for ea watershed district and the city <br />id involving erosion and sediment control, <br />Crol, illicit discharge and connections, <br />heradvised that the city worked with <br />ted issues and projects. <br />t the reques Me .gler, Mr. Johnson clarified that the cost for a <br />ential prope would pend on the amount of impervious coverage as to <br />w nd how sto ate management standards were triggered and the portion <br />nece ng erosi control. Mr. Johnson, in reviewing example costs, clarified <br />that the inee g fees for erosion reviews were exclusive of building permit <br />or other fe red for applications submitted to the Community development <br />department. <br />At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson reviewed the intent of escrow funds <br />and process to ensure erosion control is maintained throughout a project, at which <br />time the money was refunded unless the city needs to use the funds for a <br />contractor or city staff to bring a site into compliance if failures are found in that <br />stormwater management system. <br />At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver confirmed that a stormwater <br />management review would be triggered on any residential remodel involving <br />