My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-06-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2006
>
2006-06-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 4:13:55 PM
Creation date
9/11/2006 11:01:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/27/2006
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />incorporate site design changes into the final city approval that would allow the development to meet <br />the District's Development Review Criteria. The Development Review Criteria was developed in <br />2002 and adopted by the District on September 5, 2002. The intent of Development Review Criteria <br />was to, in part, achieve the goals and policies of the WMP. The criteria required developments and <br />redevelopments to address rate control, volume control, water quality treatment, flooding, wetland <br />protection, erosion and sediment control, and integrated resource management on their sites. (See <br />Appendix D) <br /> <br />During 2003-2005, the District assumed an advisory role to the Cities with development and <br />redevelopment proposals. The advisory role consisted of review and comment in reference to the <br />District's Development Review Criteria. The Cities would consider the comments and attempt to <br />incorporate suggested changes to the greatest extent possible into the final approval. During 2003- <br />2005, the District reviewed 71 developments or redevelopments (through 10/01/2005). (See Appendix <br />E) The District tracked compliance with all of the development review criteria and found marginal <br />compliance with the criteria. The volume control and water quality criteria had the poorest level of <br />compliance. Additionally, there were problems associated with the CRWD being made aware of the <br />developments very late in the process or not at all. The main problem with of late notification was that <br />site plans were completely developed and very difficult and costly to change at that late stage of the <br />process. Developers were usually unwilling to make changes after they had received municipal <br />approval and the city staff was either unable or unwilling to compel the developer to make the changes <br />as well. <br /> <br />To assess the impact of non-compliance with the Development Review Criteria, the District completed <br />the Development Impact Assessment in November 2004. (See Appendix F) This assessment analyzed <br />the long-term impact that the current level of compliance would have on the water resources of the <br />District. The study found that if development/redevelopment continued in the manner it had in the <br />past, the peak rate and total volume of flow, as well as the amount of phosphorus being delivered to <br />receiving water bodies would increase. The District's goal of improving conditions with the watershed <br />by achieving a decrease in rate and volume of flow, as well as a 60% reduction in phosphorus loads <br />was clearly not being met under the current development review process. Table I summarizes the <br />findings of the Development Impact Assessment: <br /> <br />Table 1- Develonment Im~act Assessment Summary Table, CRWD - November 2004 <br />Criteria CRWD Goal/Standard Results from Study <br />Rate Control 0% Increase 5 Yr Storm - 13.2% Increase <br /> 100 Yr Storm - 28.7 % Increase <br />Volume Control 0% Increase based on existing 5 Yr Storm - 24.2% Increase <br /> runoff volumes or that of site 100 Yr Storm -13.7 % Increase <br /> with 25 % impervious surfaces <br />Water Qualitv 60% Reduction 9% Increase <br /> <br />Based on these results using the development review criteria and the significant long-term impacts that <br />would result from non-compliance, the District concluded that the voluntary development review <br />process has not and would not achieve the goals and policies of the District's WMP. <br /> <br />On December 13, 2004 the District held a meeting with the member cities and indicated its intention to <br />promulgate Rules. <br /> <br />CRWD - Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) for Watershed District Rules June 7, 2006 Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br />"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District. " <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.