2011-09-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 13 he would not personally put it in if not in the AUAR, but was supportive of softening the 594 language at a minimum if that served the purpose. 595 Section C, Park Dedication Requirements 596 Member Boguszewski questioned if this section was new as well. 597 Mr. Trudgeon responded that the language was taken directly from the AUAR; and that it 598 was obvious to developers that they needed to comply with this provision; however, 599 inclusion of this section was in response to previous comments of developers and 600 commissioners at the August Public Hearing. 601 Member Boguszewski concurred with the language. 602 Line 288 603 Chair Boerigter suggested that “materials and dump” were not the appropriate words for 604 this section. 605 Member Wozniak suggested deletion of “materials” and “dump;” with concurrence from 606 other Members. 607 Response Action Plans (RAP) 608 Member Wozniak questioned why the section on RAP’s was necessary when they were 609 MPCA approved, not City approved. 610 City Engineer Bloom concurred; however, she noted that recently staff became aware of 611 a RAP that could have allowed something to be left on public right-of-way; and advised 612 that this was not acceptable and that the City would therefore have some regulations in 613 place to ensure that a developer could not place materials on public property to simply 614 move it from their parcel to comply with MPCA regulations. 615 Lines 329-334, Impervious Surfaces 616 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that this section had been revised to be more definitive 617 and consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. 618 City Engineer Bloom concurred; noting that the previous language had been too lengthy. 619 In response to Member Strohmeier’s request for elaborating on her comment, Ms. Bloom 620 responded that every development was required to meet the regulations of the City’s 621 Surface Water Management Plan ensuring that runoff volume did not increase off-site 622 runoff and that water was cleaned to a certain level, with total suspended solids (TSS) 623 and phosphorus removed. Ms. Bloom advised that this was a requirement of the 624 Metropolitan Council as well as various watershed districts, as well as the City’s public 625 works goals for improving water quality. 626 Member Strohmeier questioned if there was any harm in keeping the language in the 627 proposed ordinance; or if there was any adverse affect in keeping it in the ordinance. 628 City Engineer Bloom advised that the rationale in striking the language was that it was 629 too prescriptive in addressing current regulations, when the Surface Water Management 630 Plan could change, requiring that it and this ordinance be amended for consistency and 631 to meet new or revised regulations. However, Ms. Bloom advised that, by only 632 referencing the Plan in general, it simplified compliance requirements and allowed for 633 more consistency. 634 Line 87, Traffic Study 635 Member Wozniak sought clarification that the traffic study was approved by the City or 636 the engineer; with Ms. Bloom responding that it was approved by the Engineer. 637 Member Strohmeier, while not proposing it, questioned the ramifications of not passing 638 the proposed ordinance, or if it didn’t receive a recommendation from the Planning 639 Commission to the City Council; and what that ultimate result would be. Member 640 Strohmeier noted that the AUAR was an environmental document, and there were still 641 environmental regulations that were required of a developer; and questioned whether a 642