Laserfiche WebLink
compliant; how a typical resident understood and complied with the calculations <br />in determining that 30% coverage ratio and whether or not they needed a permit; <br />lot shapes dictating rights -of -way and easement issues and in defining <br />public/private space; and lack of standards citywide that create significant <br />disadvantages for some property owners and significant advantages for others <br />depending on the time and way they were developed. <br />Additional discussion included how to determine the area for the 30% impervious <br />coverage rule; goal of mitigating runoff, especially in problem areas in the city; <br />whether a standard percentage should be used or a lower percentage for areas with <br />high runoff issues. <br />After further deliberation, Chair Cihacek noted there was some disagreement <br />among PWETC members as to the stormwater permit fund and management <br />standards, with the only apparent area of consensus tonight: moving from the <br />city's current 1.0" to 1.5" watershed district stormwater volume standard <br />With Mr. Freihammer advising that staff was looking for a PWETC <br />recommendation to allow them to bring all components to the City Council at one <br />time, Chair Cihacek directed staff to develop a natural conformance standard and <br />return to the next PWETC meeting with that. Also, Chair Cihacek asked that staff <br />return with an examination of how runoff calculations related to total lot size and <br />whether or not the rights -of -way or easement areas could be utilized or how that <br />could be rectified or through what percentage. <br />Member Trainor noted controversy within the state on use of wetland credits; with <br />Mr. Freihammer advising that the city had utilized that program for the recent <br />Victoria Street project. <br />Member Trainor suggested using that type of program versus an impact fund to <br />get the difference, recognizing the difference between residents and developers <br />who may use it as an "out" for due diligence elimination on their part. <br />Mr. Freihammer responded that the city currently had a tiered structure for larger <br />projects provided they can prove mitigation on the site and justify why <br />stormwater isn't addressed on site. Mr. Freihammer suggested one area in which <br />this may apply and an example of the exception to the rule with or without this, <br />was the recent demolition of the former ICO building at the intersection of <br />Larpenteur Avenue and Rice Street. In city staff s work with the project engineer, <br />Mr. Freihammer reported that they would have to mitigate their stormwater <br />management, but there was no adjacent stormwater and it would flow directly to <br />the street forever. Mr. Freihammer noted it wasn't feasible to install underground <br />storage as there was no place for infiltration or no pipe discharge as the soils in <br />that area were not amenable to that. Therefore, Mr. Freihammer noted that site <br />may be able to mitigate through a fee in lieu of for the portion that could not be <br />mitigated. <br />Page 13 of 17 <br />