2019_11-26_PWETCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PWETC members noted some difficulty in identifying specific areas in the attachments to consider this revised language, asking that staff make sure appropriate sections are defined in future iterations for easier reference by the PWETC in their review. Mr. Freihammer continued to review other proposed revisions tied to updated ordinance, including reducing application to erosion control sites of 5,000 square feet versus the current standard of 10,000 square feet and how that threshold would be triggered for application of those standards and involving public and private properties throughout the city. Discussion ensued as to whether or not having these considerations under one permit was feasible and more prudent for ease of use; creation of another tier within the city fee schedule depending on the threshold and inspection needs as indicated; and combining one set of rules under one ordinance and one permit unless significant differentials were involved. Mr. Freihammer noted other minor updates suggested by staff for MS4 permit requirements; but advised that the draft Stormwater Impact Fund (Attachment C) was a new addition. Mr. Freihammer explained its intent for standards to apply to development and/or redevelopment projects within the city and how they may or may not help achieve the water resource goals of the city's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and maintain compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal permit program and its standards. Specifically, Mr. Freihammer noted this would address residential properties at or over the 30% impervious surface restrictions, and mitigation efforts to address them or a fee in lieu of that mitigation to serve as a fund to offset those impacts. Mr. Freihammer reviewed the draft fund as provided, and intent for a one-time fee applied to a separate fund for use in stormwater projects located within that particular watershed district in which the properties are located. Mr. Freihammer opined that this would save staff resources, as they had just started going through those best management practices (BMP's) such as raingardens that had been installed five years ago as part of the recertification process. Discussion ensued about the various scenarios that may occur under this requirement, with Member Seigler expressing personal concerns based on his particular lot among others citywide that may have significant easements considerably beyond what may ever be required and remaining dormant for years without the property owners ability to have that area considered as part of their green space. Further discussion included how impervious calculations were done, with staff clarifying that those calculations included drainage and utility easements; lots historically over the 30% impervious coverage allotment and already non - Page 12 of 17