My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_1128_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_1128_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 4:04:43 PM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:10:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
280
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
City Council Study Session —1U21/OS <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 11 <br />areas and water quality treatment (i.e., Ladyslipper Park area). <br />Mr. Schwartz reviewed the CRWD Public Hearing attended by <br />City staff and other community staff; and request for an <br />extension of the comment period to December 15, 2005; <br />proposed review of the rules by a Technical Advisory Panel <br />(TAP); implement of rules; concern about road projects; and cost <br />implications, Mr. Schwartz noted that he CRWD had extended <br />the comment period to December 15, 2005, but had not acted not <br />the suggested TAP. <br />Mr. Schwartz reviewed those areas that staff supported: clean <br />water goals, flood mitigation, ground recharge (i.e., Cub Foods at <br />Har Mar; Arona Site redevelopment; Target redevelopment; and <br />Rosedale expansion). Mr. Schwartz noted recent <br />implementations to the storm drainage system, extensive rains <br />this fall, and improvements modeled by the overall system. <br />Discussion included the City's obligation and relationship with <br />the CRWD; appointment by the Ramsey County Board of <br />CRWD members; consistency with other Watershed District <br />mandates; and need to implement stakeholders in the TAP prior <br />to adoption of the proposed rules by the CRWD. <br />Mr. Schwartz reviewed staff concerns, including consistency of <br />rules with other jurisdictions; increase in road project costs; <br />increase in public maintenance costs; e�'feetivenesslperfnrmance <br />of application with road projects; limited right-of-way <br />availability; utility conflicts; surety requirements; timeline for <br />reviews; limited recharge in certain soil types; variancelappeal <br />procedures; increases in costs for private property owners for <br />maintenance; and level of technical review by non-watershed <br />staff. <br />Further discussion included impacts to the City of St. Paul alone; <br />corporate concerns of all cities involved; involvement of other <br />agencies including Ramsey County Public Works and the <br />Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). <br />Councilmember Schroeder concurred with staff concerns and <br />observations related to the impact on city road projects; right-af- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.