My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 02-18-2003
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCP 02-18-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:18:11 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 2:34:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
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 />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />eO. <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />SUBJECf: <br />DATE: <br /> <br />MAYOR BEVERLY APUKOWSKI CDUNOLMEMBERS AND STAPF. <br />eRR, liC <br />PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 1HE RICE CREEK NORTIIREGIONAL TRAIL MASTERPLAN <br />1/1612003 <br /> <br />OVer the last several weeks we have had several meetillgs and conversations concerning the Amendment to the Rice <br />Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan. While Ramsey County has changed some language ill the Amendment, <br />illcluding taking out language that made the city responsibje for the cost of design and construction of the infrastructure <br />we still have some concerns over other language still contained or missing from the Amendment. Our concerns are as <br />follows : <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. We have suggested that Ramsey County be a part of the planning process and suggested language ill the <br />Amendment as follows: <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />"The city and the county together during the next year will complete extensive engilleering, environmental, <br />and planning studies to determine how to best utilize and develop parcels A, and C through G ill <br />compliance with the "Vento Plan." <br /> <br />We all agree that preliminary transportation plans call for a north! south road from Courtty Road I to <br />Highway 96. The city has put ill motion the process which illcludes transportation, engilleering, and land <br />planning to determine the best way to accomplish this connection. We also understand the County's <br />preference is for no road connection through the wildlife corridor. And we agree that after the city's <br />planning process is complete it may well be the recommendation of the transportation experts that the <br />north! south road does not go through the wildlife corridor. However, we believe those experts and the <br />city should be allowed to go through the planning process and design without havillg a preselected site <br />outlined ill this amendment. The language we suggested that allows for this is as follows: <br /> <br />"If after transportation studies are completed and those studies recommend a eastern north! south road <br />across the wildlife corridor as the connection between Highway 96 and County Road I the County will <br />provide a road easement to the Oty ill the general alignment of the existing north! south road." <br /> <br />We believe this language recognizes the County's position, provides the County with what it needs to move <br />forward with their process, but ultimately allows the Oty's process to follow its natural progression and <br />select the best site for the Vento Plan. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />We believe the language contained in the Amendment under 3. Restoration/Development relaring to the <br />remediation of the contaminated portion of the wildlife corridor does not go far enough in protecting the <br />Oty's illterests ill cleaning up the property. For example, remediated can simply mean placiog deed <br />restrictions On the property and/ or leaving the contamination in place and placillg a fence around it. We <br />believe it is important that both the Oty and the County share the goal to have the contamination cleaned <br />up. Therefore, the language we suggested was as follows: <br /> <br />"It is the goal of the County and Oty to have all the TCAAP property cleaned up to a degree that allows <br />for usage by the public. It is understood that Ramsey County Parks Department does not have the funds to <br />clean up the property." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.