My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0723
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0723
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2007 11:59:30 AM
Creation date
9/12/2007 11:59:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/23/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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 Cif C®uncgl eating <br />®nday, .Tuly 23, 2007 <br />Page 41 <br />Councilmember Pust sought clarification on mitigation plans and their <br />timeframe: what was needed now to accommodate improvements at <br />the college and what was scheduled to take place by 2018 - 203 0; and <br />the intent of the college to participate in or fund traffic mitigation is- <br />sues. <br />Mr. Lindgren responded that mitigation was provided for immediate <br />improvements as well as over time to full build-out; and would be <br />driven by traffic engineers for background traffic growth other than <br />the College, as well as improvements on campus. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that, from his recollection of discussions with <br />the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn:D®T), the reviewing <br />City consultant, and the College's consultant, mitigations strategies <br />would be required upon the addition of the first traffic-generating fa- <br />cility; and specific language would be incorporated into the PLTL) <br />Agreement. <br />Mayor Klausing refocused discussion to whether the EAW was suffi- <br />cient or if further study through an EIS was required. Mayor Klausing <br />noted that specific items could be addressed as part of the PUD <br />Agreement, and would come before the City Council for refinement at <br />a future date. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that she understood the process and steps; <br />however, she was analyzing whether mitigation steps and their timing <br />were sufficient as part of her consideration of the EAW. <br />Mr. Paschke noted that he was uncertain whether the EAW could spe- <br />cifically identify time and date, and triggering mechanisms to achieve <br />compliance Wlth mitigation factors; however, he noted that the EAW <br />laid out plans to address those; and that the PUD was the land use ap- <br />proval document that solidified achievement of those mitigation fac- <br />tors, while the EAW served as a general document or guide. <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that during the information gathering <br />process and a determination that potential environmental affects are <br />subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory efforts, and when details <br />are available indicating such mitigation strategies, they can be in- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.