My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-08-03_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-08-03_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2011 2:30:57 PM
Creation date
12/20/2011 2:30:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/3/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 <br />Page 9 <br />completed. Mr. Foster sought clarification in line 251 related to trichloroethylene (TCE) <br />403 <br />concentrations exceeding the Health Risk Limit (HRL) and their possible presence in the <br />404 <br />glacial aquifer, and in line 255 related to Diesel Range Organics (DRO) in the glacial <br />405 <br />aquifer; and how sources for TCE and/or DRO were identified in AUAR area; whether <br />406 <br />applicable parcels had been done already or whether individual property owners were <br />407 <br />responsible to identify them. Mr. Foster expressed his confusion in identifying <br />408 <br />contamination performed throughout the overlay district and those specific to individual <br />409 <br />parcels. Mr. Foster questioned how to proceed logically and reasonably to identify <br />410 <br />potential pollutants and their potential sources; and whether this was the appropriate <br />411 <br />body to seek that information from or sought direction to the appropriate body for that <br />412 <br />information or the process to follow. <br />413 <br />With City Attorney Bartholdi’s concurrence, Mr. Paschke opined that, to his knowledge, <br />414 <br />no identification of contaminants had been done to-date on individual sites. Mr. Bartholdi <br />415 <br />advised that it was the responsibility of the property owner to find out and comply with <br />416 <br />MPCA requirements. <br />417 <br />Mr. Foster opined that the proposed ordinance, and those sections he previously <br />418 <br />referenced, appeared to make a determination that TCE and DRO were already present <br />419 <br />throughout the area. <br />420 <br />City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the AURA had used similar language; but deferred to <br />421 <br />the City’s Engineering Department for further clarification. <br />422 <br />Member Wozniak noted that the City had applied for and received grant funds to address <br />423 <br />contamination in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. <br />424 <br />City Planner Paschke clarified that those funds were not for the entire area, and not <br />425 <br />specific to determine the source of contaminants, as those types of environmental review <br />426 <br />and approval were addressed by the MPCA; noting that that was the purpose of specify <br />427 <br />those two (2) particular potential contaminants in ordinance language, for the purpose of <br />428 <br />actually determining the source. <br />429 <br />Member Wozniak suggested that the MPCA seemed the logical agency at which to begin <br />430 <br />asking questions. <br />431 <br />City Planner Paschke noted that, if redevelopment was to occur on any site, it needed to <br />432 <br />go through en environmental review on site. <br />433 <br />Member Wozniak questioned if Mr. Paschke was suggesting that Mr. Foster needed to <br />434 <br />start the process over. <br />435 <br />City Planner Paschke noted that the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area had already <br />436 <br />been subject to a Phase I Environmental Review; and that based on that initial review <br />437 <br />potential contaminants had been identified or strongly suggested; however, individual <br />438 <br />parcel environmental review would further define the source of those contaminants and <br />439 <br />how to mitigate it. <br />440 <br />Member Wozniak asked Mr. Paschke to provide a review of available and/or historical <br />441 <br />environmental data in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area to-date. <br />442 <br />City Planner Paschke advised that some review and sampling had been completed with <br />443 <br />Phases I and II in the area, with environmental contamination in evidence. While some of <br />444 <br />that initial information was available, Mr. Paschke advised that further information would <br />445 <br />be necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of the MPCA and successfully clean up <br />446 <br />all sites in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. <br />447 <br />Chair Boerigter summarized the purpose of including the two (2) provisions in the <br />448 <br />ordinance as referenced by Mr. Foster was to reiterate that, according to the AUAR and <br />449 <br />testing performed to-date, both TCE and DRO had been determined to be found in the <br />450 <br />Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; and developers needed to take that into consideration <br />451 <br />as part of any development proposal in order to determine if their particular site was one <br />452 <br />of the sources of those contaminants and how best to mitigate them. <br />453 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.