Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007 <br />comments to the proposed changes by August 1, 2007. Connie Taillon and Jim <br />Studenski will be submitting comments on behalf of the City of Lino Lakes. <br /> <br />Ms. Taillon was present to review RCWD’s proposed changes and City <br />comments. <br /> <br />Page 1. Rule C: Stormwater Management Plan. Ms. Taillon went over the first <br />page of her memorandum regarding proposed changes. Current: 2.5 acres. <br />Proposed: Reduce exemption to new development, redevelopment, linear projects <br />or additions from 2.5 acres to at least 1 acre in size. City comment: The City of <br />Lino Lakes comment will be to add language that would define a one acre site. <br /> <br />Page 2. Water Quality and Water Control. Current: Impervious surface runoff is <br />currently .34 inches in 72 hours. Proposed: Under the new rules infiltration <br />basins are required to draw down 2.8 inches within 48 hours from end of a storm <br />event. City comment: Is RCWD’s requirement of infiltration for the two year <br />storm event for proposed conditions only? Why is RCWD not requiring existing <br />volumes vs. proposed? In types A & B soil areas RCWD is proposing to infiltrate <br />to pre-settlement runoff. Ms. O’Dea asked how Ms. Taillon is comparing runoff. <br />Ms. Taillon stated they are only capturing the excess over and above the existing. <br />She stated basins would more than likely be made smaller and onsite rather than <br />regional and possibly offsite. Ms. O’Dea questioned alternatives to the existing. <br />Ms. Bor stated the developer comes in and if they are using pre-existing <br />conditions what does that mean to them? Ms. Taillon stated RCWD states not to <br />look at existing conditions, they are saying design a system to infiltration 2.8 <br />inches that goes to that basin with no runoff. Ms. Taillon suggested that we take <br />this requirement out in all cases and suggested using a volume requirement. She <br />stated we should try to mimic the existing conditions and not just look at <br />proposed. Ms. Taillon stated the design based on existing conditions is the <br />suggestion from the city. <br /> <br />Page 3. Peak Flow Management. Current: Rates not to exceed “pre-project” <br />runoff rates for the critical 1-year or 2 year and 100 year frequency events. <br />Proposed: In types A & B soils rates not to exceed “pre-settlement” runoff rates <br />for the critical 2 year and 100 year frequency events for sites no covered by <br />impervious surfaces in pre-existing condition. City comment: Would like <br />clarification for rate control. Is it the site as a whole or is the rate to be met at <br />every point that it discharges off the site. <br /> <br />Page 4. Flood Protection for Structures. City comment: Define table as to local <br />detention basins and wetlands. Ask why the RCWD lowered the low floor <br />elevation. Infiltration basins are designed to run dry. <br /> <br />Page 4. Rule D. Erosion Control Plans: Current: Permit and erosion control plan <br />are required for new development, redevelopment, or additions to an existing site. <br />Proposed: Permit and an erosion control plan is required for grading, excavation, <br />2 DRAFT MINUTES