|
<br />Page 6
<br />
<br />15. Other Considerations: The City of Moundsview's City
<br />Administrator was C?p-1:ac:ted regardin9the applic.apt's
<br />proposal. The City of Mou'ndsview would have' no obj ection
<br />the proposed :y.~e ',^' .TtW.; futl.lre. extens i,pn" 9f::}~u~~~_1;lg,. Dr iye ,
<br />however, would heed to be' financed by the 'ownet" of' the.
<br />') .' Co' 5p.ro!?e,:r:,t'Y r~q,\l,e:~:tJI1~r /? i3,J.9., Jptprove!TIen}s:".c.r . L:' ,
<br />
<br />j?~~l{c:j~~~tks' ',~'~" i')., '~:,~ '.: " if :r,.,(~ r~~~., :;;..3
<br />
<br />'_ c:~
<br />
<br />to
<br />
<br />c~ :y ~ 0
<br />
<br />;1... "streets:, The .appl~cantYlo\lld .n~ed to p~ye the 30 f"Qot r,oad
<br />easement from where Jt,:' pre,s'~ptly ends"'onthe' Techrietit{s site
<br />onto the subject site.'::: . It .fs' conceivable as land area becomes
<br />more scarce and technolpgy" becomlas more ,!Sopp..is,ti.9.i3,.ted,., the
<br />extreme west portion of the subject site could 'be 'devEfloped.
<br />At such time, the 30 foot road easement and Mustang Drive
<br />would be improved to serve the immediatearea:.'.:)".,:T<";'>,
<br />
<br />2. Curb Cuts: N/A
<br />
<br />L f j _i'._; . <,. ~.~~rl
<br />
<br />3. Utilities: Sanitary sewer would need to be'extendedto
<br />subject site fr,om where it s.tub~ off to the Technetics,
<br />Building. Water services wduld be extendedf~rbmthe main
<br />along the 30 foot road easement.
<br />
<br />4. Easements: None required
<br />
<br />-,
<br />
<br />5. Grading/Drainage:
<br />
<br />Grading would need to be, approved by the City
<br />Engineer.
<br />
<br />The Watershed District is presently reviewing the'
<br />applicant's proposal for permit approval.
<br />
<br />6. RCWD:
<br />
<br />7. MPCA: The MPCA is requiring the applicant to submit plans.
<br />and drawings of the proposed development for review ana
<br />comment. The MPCA has indicated it would lik_e to ,see a
<br />bituminous surface provided over the parking;' driVe, and
<br />storage areas to serve as ,a cap over the site and avoid
<br />erosion and stdrmwate'r percolation."" ; , ,.':
<br />. _ } i\
<br />
<br />8. Ramsey County - Environmental Health Division: In a letter dated
<br />July 22, 1987 (see attached), Mr ~ 'Rfdftarcf Hlavka/'Soll:d Waste
<br />Planner, stated; "Based on the data shown in our file, no
<br />major groundwater contamination problems are suspected~'" Mr.
<br />Hlavka further states; "These contaminants can be troublesome,
<br />but are fairly innocuous compared to the' contamination which
<br />would result from hazardous wastes.
<br />.(-:,[~: .~~j'~.( >';:' ~ ,);-.
<br />
<br />Also attached is a report from Delta,Environmental
<br />Consultants, hired by Rtra!il Truckfrr<Ji ~~~d evaluate'MPCA' s data
<br />regarding the subject site. DEC's comments were, ,"The major
<br />concern at this site would not appear to be t:he:wc(terquality
<br />or chemistry issues, but concerns over ,future MPCA
<br />requirements, landfill cover material'-;concerns ,'J and land use
<br />concerns.
<br />
|