2010-10-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

or drainage, or non automobile transportation issues, if not also automobile transportation issues. Member Vanderwall concurred, suggesting that the PWET Commission wasn't so much interested in developing a statistical background, but could provide questions to consider beyond the concerns addressed by the Planning Commission. Member Felice opined that, given the significant public concern raised with the proposed asphalt plant, it would be of benefit for the City to proactively recognize potential issues to be addressed before they came to a head. Chair DeBenedet noted the PWET Commission's expertise in making recommendations for conditions, such as for the proposed asphalt plant application for a Conditional Use for outdoor storage, addressing specifics beyond those considered by the Planning Commission and /or City Council, simply based on the interests of the PWET Commission. Member Stenlund recognized the review process and time constraints; however, he noted the need for the PWET Commission to at least be aware of applications being processes to alert staff to potential issues. Member Stenlund, as an example, used impervious surfaces beyond their installation and how those surfaces were maintained long -term, given their impacts to the City overall and environmental concerns for water quality. Member Stenlund noted potential questions that could be developed to seek input from developers on their long range maintenance plans and design standards before the results became the City's problem related to water quality. However, Member Stenlund noted that, if the PWET Commission remained unaware of proposed changes in land use, they couldn't be proactive in making recommendation for future design standards to protect water quality and MS4 issues post construction and Best Management Practices (BMP's) for maintenance. Member Stenlund noted the ramifications to the water quality for a resident to install a pool, and how they managed the water drained from the pool, that could have significant impacts if not handled correctly. Mr. Trudgeon sought more specificity from Commissioners on which permits and applications they wanted to review. Member Stenlund suggested that the PWET Commission be a participant in the process by reviewing how a project would be maintained post construction, to review those things that could affect the quality of life for the entire community; and addressing the need to be proactive in pursuing improved storm water quality for future generations. Member Stenlund noted the need for PWET Commission involvement when the City was considering vacating easements or rights -of -way, since ownership of the property now was certainly less expensive than repurchasing it if a future need developed. Member Stenlund suggested some type of trigger or threshold be created to determine if and when a project needed Page 6 of 14