2012-10-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 03, 2012 Page 6 produced in hard copy format for the agenda packet, but available as an electronic 246 version. 247 Ms. Bloom apologized for this oversight; and clarified that the plan itself was only 248 seventy-two (72) pages, and was also posted on the City’s website as part of the 249 Planning Commission’s meeting packet; and that it had been her intent that the Planning 250 Commission receive the document for review. 251 Mr. Paschke suggested that a PDF copy be provided to the Planning Commission for 252 their individual review and comment to staff immediately following this meeting. 253 Ms. Bloom highlighted the Plan for the benefit of Commissioners, noting that storm water 254 discussions were frequent as new development proposals came forward (e.g. Wal-Mart 255 and Josephine Woods); and that the purpose of the plan was to provide guidance for new 256 development. Ms. Bloom noted that a new development could not increase runoff from a 257 site, and sediment in water had to be contained at a certain level; with this plan providing 258 required guidelines. 259 In recognizing that water management was based on geography, not City of Roseville 260 boundaries, Ms. Bloom advised that Roseville only had jurisdiction over storm water 261 within the area bounded by County Road D, Larpenteur Avenue and the Hennepin 262 County border. Ms. Bloom noted that the storm water flowing through Roseville could 263 also be impacted by watershed north of the City, with conditions applied by various 264 watershed and municipalities to address those situations; and ultimate control by the 265 State Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control 266 Agency (MPCA). Therefore, Ms. Bloom noted that, at a local level, the City needed to 267 keep a lot of people happy with the permit process, with the Plan showing how the City 268 intended to do so. 269 Ms. Bloom advised that her intent was to seek feedback from as many agencies and 270 interested parties as applicable, and asked for feedback from individual Commissioners 271 at their earliest convenience. Ms. Bloom noted that it was her intent to make the 272 Commission aware of the City’s standards provided in the plan, and regardless of what 273 applications came forward, the City would follow and enforce those storm water and 274 water quality rules. 275 Since this is not a Public Hearing, Member Boguszewski clarified that individual 276 Commissioners should provide their input directly to Ms. Bloom; with Vice Chair 277 Gisselquist concurring, noting that no formal action was being sought. 278 Discussion included pending update of the City’s shoreland ordinance once a model 279 ordinance had been produced and distributed by the Department of Natural Resources 280 (DNR) anticipated in 2013, at which time dramatic changes would occur in the City’s 281 current ordinance (Public Works Section 800). Ms. Bloom noted that this was part of the 282 2013 Work Plan; and that the ordinance revisions would come before the Planning 283 Commission for a formal Public Hearing as a land use issue; with a number of storm 284 drainage issues as part of that review. Ms. Bloom noted that the original shoreland 285 ordinance was first adopted in the 1970’’s, with various revisions following. 286 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Leaf clarified that, while MN Rule 8410 287 defined the necessary content of the Plan making most city/district plans similar, the 288 guiding principles were specific to Roseville. Mr. Leaf noted that it was fortunate that the 289 watershed plans and requirements for Capitol Region and Ramsey-Washington 290 Watershed Districts were similar; the Rice Creek Watershed District rules were currently 291 somewhat different. Mr. Leaf advised that, overall the Districts were fairly consistent, but 292 some may have lower standards or mixed standards. 293 Ms. Bloom reiterated her interest in hearing any and all feedback and comments, or her 294 fielding of questions, from the Planning Commission during their review; and asked that 295 they recognizing the schedule as outlined by Mr. Leaf, and respond by early- to mid- 296 November of 2012. Ms. Bloom noted how valuable the PWETC had been to staff and the 297