2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 10 Mr. Foster concurred with what the City was attempting to accomplish in the ordinance 454 language, but his understanding of the current proposed ordinance language was that it 455 was the responsible of each site to identify the source and its magnitude and extent 456 throughout the entire area. 457 Chair Boerigter concurred with Mr. Foster’s perception of the proposed language and 458 potential interpretation as stated by Mr. Foster. 459 Mr. Foster asked that the language be more specific in the area under direct 460 responsibility by a property owner or developer, whether throughout the entire Twin 461 Lakes overlay district or only his own parcel(s). Mr. Foster asked the City Attorney to 462 address the developer site itself. 463 City Attorney Bartholdi noted that the AUAR language of things needing done throughout 464 the entire site needed to be clarified and more site-specific; and as requested by Chair 465 Boerigter, who was the responsible party and performance timing. 466 Sue Steinwall, Attorney with Frederickson & Byron 467 Ms. Steinwall stated that her comments were similar to those of Mr. Foster. As an 468 attorney with twenty (20) years of experience with environmental issues, Ms. Steinwall 469 sought clarification on the intent of the ordinance to freeze the AUAR done in 2007; or if 470 the goal of the City was to make sure the AUAR was implemented, she suggested that 471 the City consider periodically updating the AUAR for implementation of those updates. 472 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Ms. Steinwall specified that she was not a 473 Roseville resident, but representing a client considering property purchase in the Twin 474 Lakes Redevelopment Area. 475 Ms. Steinwall made specific reference to the 2004 groundwater study and specific 476 directions that property owners seek to implement recommendations from that study; and 477 her understanding that groundwater conditions change and contaminants breakdown or 478 move. In her previous work with the MPCA, Ms. Steinwall advised that her firm was 479 required to update environmental information, opining that the snapshot from testing of 480 groundwater frequently changed. Ms. Steinwall questioned requiring property owners to 481 implement recommendations from testing done some time ago. 482 Ms. Steinwall further referenced the glacial aquifer study, opining that this was fairly 483 unusual, and while she was not a scientist of engineer, references to the glacial aquifer 484 would be deeper, and most Phase II tests involve shallow water, usually providing a good 485 idea of the types of contamination in the soil. Prior to attending tonight’s meeting, Ms. 486 Steinwall advised that she had questioned an environmental consultant regarding the 487 references to glacial aquifer testing, who opined that requiring glacial aquifer testing 488 would be an enormous undertaking and would go far beyond the confines of the Twin 489 Lakes Redevelopment Area, essentially involving review of drinking water in a vast area. 490 Related to overall environmental requirements of the proposed ordinance, and 491 requirements that a developer prepare and implement action plans to be approved by the 492 City Council, Ms. Steinwall suggested that some standards be applied. Ms. Steinwall 493 advised that the general routine, based on her experience, was preparation of a 494 Development Response Action Plan (DERAP) approved by the MCPA according to their 495 standards; with the City then receiving a letter of approval from the MPCA. Ms. Steinwall 496 questioned if the proposed ordinance language was implying that City standards would 497 exceed those of the MPCA, and how a developer could predict those standards. Ms. 498 Steinwall suggested Chapter 1022.04, Section B.1 (line 231) be revised to state that 499 property owners/developers be required to provide a letter from the MPCA stating their 500 approval of the developer’s work plan. 501 Ms. Steinwall noted earlier discussions about the extent of the contamination and when 502 specific components would kick in if representing someone doing infrastructure or 503 roadway improvements. Beginning with line 235 of Chapter 1022.04, Section B.2, Ms. 504