My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_1206_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_1206_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 4:35:22 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:46:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
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 Regular Meeting —11/22/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 31 <br />than "100 feet;" and staff's interpretation of the shoreland <br />management code did concur with that of the developer <br />as presented. <br />Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification regarding the <br />TCE studies and their status. <br />Mr. Knapp advised that a Phase I and Phase II review of <br />the project had been completed by the Minnesota <br />Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) <br />10.c City Staff City Staff <br />Community Development Director Dennis Welsch <br />thanked the City Council for hearing all sides of this <br />issue. Mr. Welsch proceeded to provide a staff summary <br />of valuable points raised by both parties. <br />Mr. Welsch referred to Section 15 of the written <br />comments, as prepared by staff, and provided a quick <br />overview of staff's interpretation of the validity of the <br />2001 AUAR; and staff's response to and perspectives on <br />the point by point petition concerns. <br />Mr. Welsch referenced the staff's sources, the Natural <br />Resource Management Plan developed in 2001/2002 that <br />provided an analysis of Langton Lake, noting that the lake <br />quality was improving, as completed by a competitor of <br />the Barr Group, and due to the city's construction of <br />stormwater ponding in the area. <br />Mr. Welsch specifically addressed the petition points <br />regarding the validity of the AUAR: <br />1) More roadway: Staff noted that Mount Ridge and <br />Prior were existing local streets; and the length of <br />the proposed Parkway was similar; <br />2) Location of parkway: Staff noted that realignment <br />in the plan was not considered significant; <br />3) Parkway connection to Snelling: Staff noted that <br />the plan to connect the two was proposed to be <br />staged; no intersection at Parkway and Snelling <br />4) Wildlife protection: Staff noted that the park was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.