02/22/16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board Member Lewis asked what the advantages are in a surface water supply versus deeper water supply. City Civil Engineer II Linton explained the City is drawing from an aquifer currently. Further north and west, there is no aquifer. The City may not be able to draw enough from this aquifer for another supply well. As businesses and residences are added, the City has to look at the possibility of a surface water treatment plant. This is being considered. The City cannot pay for a treatment plant on its own. The cost is in the $18 to $20 million range. He explained the City replaced all the water meters in the City in 2008. A few water meters were not working correctly. As a result of this, and current usage, the City is implementing water conservation measures. City Planner Anderson stated the City is looking for a more regional solution to address water supply, since this is a regional concern. Utilities Supervisor Nelson commented he receives all water complaints. The complaints are usually that the water is rusty or has manganese, which produces the smell of rotten eggs. He added the City has an adequate supply of water for several more years. Board Member Bentz questioned if the water is tested for other materials. Utilities Supervisor Nelson answered it is tested for many materials and elements. The state sends boxes of tools to test for new materials at least annually. Acting Chairperson Valentine suggested the Board stay in touch with staff on this issue. He commented the DNR is under a tremendous amount of pressure to protect the public. 5.02: Consider Ordinance #16-03 Establishing a Permanent Setback from Wetlands and Storm Water Ponds in Accordance with the Provisions of the Lower Rum River Water Management Organization's 3rd Generation Plan City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He raised the issue of a home that is very near wetlands. The owners cannot build a deck due to the proximity to the wetland. He reviewed the building requirements. In order to eliminate this scenario, staff recommends a minimum lot depth be established. With new requirements, this house would have had sufficient room all the way around it or the plat would have been reconfigured. He noted there was nothing that prevented this lot from being developed. The setbacks noted in this Ordinance will apply to any property developed after the Ordinance is adopted. Board Member Lewis asked what the front yard requirements are. City Civil Engineer II Linton responded there is a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet, dependent on the configuration of the lot. Board Member Lewis inquired whether any existing developments that may not abide by the new Ordinance will be grandfathered in. City Planner Anderson confirmed. He said if houses met the minimums when they were built, they will be considered lawful, non-conforming. Environmental Policy Board / February 22, 2016 Page 3 of 6