Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 3, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Keehn indicated Rice Creek Watershed District has authority over the Judicial Ditches and <br />the improvements that are made to them. He pointed out that under the Statute, the Watershed <br />District would be required to petition each property owner in the area prior to commencing any <br />project, such as cleaning out a ditch, however, the law has been amended to provide that <br />improvements can be made under less stringent requirements. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller noted two question marks at the end of a sentence on Page 19, under <br />Ground Water Resource Data, which indicates “Wellhead Protection Plan.” She inquired if <br />something was to be included at the end of this sentence. Mr. Keehn stated the Counties are <br />currently monitoring well water, and at this point, their research is incomplete. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson inquired if the list in Section 4 was a subset of the list contained in the <br />previous plan, omitting those items that have been completed and adding items that have been <br />identified since that time. Mr. Keehn stated the majority of the projects have been identified, <br />and the majority of the water quality issues have not changed. He stated some of the other issues <br />in the plan relate to the street construction and curb and gutter projects, and this could be <br />included. He added that the maintenance issues are primarily the same. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the Streets Policy Committee had considered the issue of stormwater <br />runoff, and some of the Planning Commission members had been involved with that committee <br />in terms of the actual impacts of the runoff to the drainage system. He inquired if these items <br />would be incorporated into the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Keehn advised that Rice Creek Watershed District, as the permitting authority, may not be <br />aware of this issue, therefore, it would be best addressed by the City. He indicated that although <br />this may be subject to change, they prefer to include as much of the information in the plan as <br />possible, and have the Ordinance reference the plan. He pointed out that it is much easier to <br />change the plan than it is to change the ordinance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller stated she would like to see some consistency in terms of the references to <br />Highway 10. Community Development Director Jopke stated the roadway in front of City Hall <br />is generally referred to as County 10, and Highway 118 is now referred to as Highway 10. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kaden stated the Comprehensive Plan makes references to “Highway 10 (Old <br />118)”, and “County Road 10 (Old Highway 10).” Mr. Keehn stated they would attempt to be <br />consistent in this regard. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated from time to time, drainage issues come forward when residents <br />make modifications to their property, and such projects do not typically present a problem, <br />however, in the case of a large commercial property, they could. For example, when Roberts Off <br />Ten desired to expand their parking lot, the neighbors were concerned that every time it rains <br />their street floods, therefore, an outlet restriction was installed in the parking lot. He explained <br />that information came forward with that project, and later as part of the Theater Project