Agenda - Council - 05/27/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-162- alignment and natm'al characteristics of the wildlife corridor. Response: The details of the drainage connections that would allow wildlife movement will be developed during the design stage. The current configuration allows for a continuous path fi;om Lake Itasca to TH 10. The nature of the TH 10 crossing, currently a pipe, could prevent the easy movement of wildlife. The City will consider this need in designing the final drainage system. Comment 8.17: Discussions should take place prior to detailed design to explore possibilities for achieving harmony in the architectural vernacular between the Town Center development and the future park development, particularly where the two projects will interface e.g. lighting; site furnishings, landscaping, etc. Response: The comment is acknowledged, and discussions on this have begun between the City and the RTC design team. Comment 8.t8: With the discussion of the City's water supply system and potential contaminant sources, tiffs section should include discussion of the vulnerability of the City's wells and wellhead protection areas. The Mim~esota Department of Health has determined that Ramsey wells 1 and 2 are not vulnerable to contamination and wells 3 and 4 are vulnerable to contamination. A formal well vulnerability assessment has not been completed for Well 5. We believe that Ramsey well 5 will also be classified as vulnerable to contamination. When the 10-year time of travel capture zone is determined for well 5 we believe that the wellhead protection area will be extended to the south. ResPonse: The I4/ellher/d£rolecfion section of Item 13 and page 19-2 of the document has been changed to reflect the comment. Comment 8.19: It is our opinion that the AUAR has not provided adequate ernphasis on the fact that this site is located within a City wellhead protection area. That the City is in the process of preparing and implementing a plan to protect the immediate'groundwater resources (10 year time of travel capture zone) used for the municipal drinking water supply. And, that the wellhead protection plan must address potential contaminant sources because the FiG wells are determined to be vulnerable to surface spills and leaks. Recommendations (of the commenter): 1. Discussion of the well vulnerability and wellhead protection area vulnerability should be included in this section and its impact on development of the site. However, this section should not preempt the wellhead protection planning or program activities of the City by addressiug potential cont-aminant sources as a means to protect the City's water supply wells. 2. The AUAR should determine whether additiona! municipal wells are planned for the site. If additional wells are planned on, or near, the site the AUAR should address this. 34-14 I I I I I I I I