Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 11/08/04 <br />Minutes - Page 27 <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that the petItioners may <br />raise facts, not issues; and reviewed his suggested <br />language in the letter to each party as it related to the <br />process outlined above. <br /> <br />"TO: Mr. Michael Noonan of Rottlund Homes - Minnesota as detailed below: <br /> <br />RE: Twin Lakes Citizen Environmental Review Petition <br /> <br />We are the City Attorney for the City of Roseville. On November 8, 2004, <br />the Council adopted a procedure for addressing the above matter. The <br />procedure is identified in our November 3 letter to the Council, a copy of <br />which is attached. Please note the respective deadlines for submission of <br />written materials. You should bring whomever you determine necessary to <br />the November 22 meeting to properly respond to any questions that may <br />arise in technical areas. We strongly encourage you, however, to <br />designate one primary spokesperson to make the presentation on <br />November 22. <br /> <br />Based on our review of the Petition materials, the Petitioners assert the <br />AUAR completed for the Twin Lakes area in 2001 is not valid for a number <br />of reasons. Petitioners have raised the following specific allegations I this <br />regard: <br />1) That the Twin Lakes Parkway location has moved north. <br />2) That an additional collector road, Mount Ridge Rod, has been <br />added to the Project. <br />3) That the Twin Lakes Parkway design has changed from three/four <br />lanes to two lanes for much of its length. <br />4) That the proposed uses have changed from predominately office <br />to predominately retail and residential. <br />5) That Twin Lakes Parkway was identified in the AUAR to connect <br />to Snelling. <br />6) That traffic volumes in the most recent SRF studies are greater <br />than the AUAR contemplated. <br />7) That TCE has been discovered in groundwater. <br />8) That new rules exist governing water quality that were not in place <br />at the time the AUAR was due. <br />9) That the hours of activity contemplated by the current <br />development proposed differ from those envisioned by the AUAR. <br />10) That the visual impacts to neighboring properties will be different <br />from those contemplated in the AUAR. <br /> <br />We look forward to the information you will provide to assist us in the <br />process. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />Jay T. Squires <br />Scott T. Anderson" <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson advised that the RGU needed to review <br />what was in the AUAR; whether it was still valid; and the <br />