Agenda - Council - 02/23/2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

expanding system of water supply wells (using a single aquifer) may result in excessive withdrawal depleting the resource and possibly lowering the water table; lowering surface water levels; and draining protected wetlands. As a result, the DNR and the city are collaborating on a project to expanded water monitoring that will help determine wetland and surface water impacts from the city's additional wells. We recommend including a discussion of the DNR -city initiative to monitor the effects of city wells on nearby wetlands and surface water. Public Facilities: The discussion of public facilities is limited to only city facilities and schools. However, it is through inter - government cooperation that the city provides additional facilities to its residents such as the County library and the Household Hazardous Waste Facility to encourage Ramsey residents to protect their environment. We recommend that this chapter be expanded to include county facilities that are available to city residents. Transportation: The county has concerns with items included in the transportation chapter. This section needs some review and updating before being officially submitted to the Metropolitan Council. We would like to meet with the city to discuss our concerns. Page 6 -2 — Strategy 10: Does the city really want to construct a separate pedestrian bridge over the Mississippi River? The county could certainly support pedestrian accommodations associated with a new river crossing, however a separate pedestrian bridge over the river seems infeasible at this time. Page 6 -3 — Existing Public Roadway System — 2nd paragraph: The last sentence in this paragraph mentions the 2030 Anoka County Transportation Plan. It states that Table 6 -3 is according to the Anoka County 2030 Transportation Plan. In reviewing Table 6 -3, it shows potential functional classification changes. The changes shown in the table mainly relate to city streets, which the county would not include as part of its transportation plan. The only county correlation would be an extension of CSAH 116, but the functional class does not change. Based on the table, it may not make sense to reference the county in the text. ■ Page 6 -3 — Existing Public Roadway System — multiple locations: Text in the plan is inconsistent in using the correct prefix for county facilities. Some roads that are CSAHs are referred to as CRs. Please do a search and replace for the routes to correct the errors. In a quick scan, 116, portions of 57, and 56 are labeled incorrectly. Additionally, text is inconsistent in how it is written — sometimes it will say CSAH 22 (181 Street) and other times it says Armstrong Boulevard (CSAH 83). A consistent pattern may make it easier for readers to understand that a roadway can have a county assignment as well as a city name. ■ Page 6 -3 — Existing Public Roadway System — 3 paragraph: The third paragraph starts out discussing the principal arterial network. It describes TH 10/169, but then goes on to talk about