2019_11-26_PWETCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Cihacek noted that there appeared to be some interest of the PWETC in the concept, but more details were needed on how it was intended to function and ultimately work short- and long-term. Member Seigler addressed the majority of Roseville's housing stock and implications to and limits of those properties as a consideration in this stormwater and runoff discussion. Member Seigler cautioned that if the runoff concern got in the way of the city's desire to continue improving its housing stock, or if too many rules were made negating the possibility of improving that existing housing stock, it would not only result in rundown housing, but relocation of residents to other suburbs. Member Seigler opined that if rules were made so housing stock couldn't be improved if the lot sizes were too small, it would kill the city. Member Seigler suggested the standard be what the best water retention that could be achieved for the typical 1,200 square foot home in the suburban metropolitan area. Member Seigler admitted he had concerns with anything that got in the way of that goal; and was not interested in having the city do anything resulting in the decline of its housing stock, his number one concern. From staff s perspective, Mr. Freihammer advised that while fees were less impactful, since they were only one-time, upfront fees, the result would be that there would only be the initial cost of installation, with no long-term costs for maintenance. At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Freihammer confirmed that if a home were demolished and new construction put in its place, it would push the reset button and require that new stormwater and environmental requirements were then met. Member Seigler opined that anything a homeowner would do would restart the calculations; and reiterated that the city needed to find a way to push the boundary lines out, further opining that current easements were extreme, especially if remaining unused up to this point; or in other words, he supported a "use them or lose them" scenario. Mr. Freihammer clarified that while there may not be anything obvious above- ground on rights -of -way, often there were underground utilities. Member Seigler reiterated that, no matter a variance could apply, and the area should be included as part of your property, especially if over a 65-year period, as is his personal case, the easement had never been used, opining that the city should lose any ability to use the easement or right-of-way. Chair Cihacek noted this issue had come up before, with there being no standard right-of-way easement creating differentials among neighbors for comparison, depending on when their property was platted or when their home was built. Page 15 of 17