Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 11/22/04 <br />Minutes - Page 30 <br /> <br />ultimately address all concerns during the process. Mr. <br />Knapp addressed various programs being utilized by the <br />developer and City to-date in the project's development <br />(i.e., MPCA's VIC Program); and ongoing environmental <br />analysis, citing the end results as being more beneficial to <br />the Twin Lakes area that current conditions. <br /> <br />Mr. Knapp concluded his comments by opining that it <br />was time to "move on," both for the City, the developer <br />and for realizing the environmental benefits that will <br />ultimately be achieved through the clean up and <br />development of the Twin Lakes area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka questioned Mr. Knapp on the <br />comment regarding "swapping out" land uses to achieve a <br />maXImum usage. <br /> <br />Mr. Knapp noted that the language of the rule, in the <br />provision that addresses the total development area didn't <br />exceed the maximum levels of redevelopment, as <br />illustrated by staff, and due to the substantial reduction in <br />the commercial land use proposed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough questioned the location of the <br />Parkway in relationship to Langton Lake. <br /> <br />Joel Samuel, Project Engineer, RKO <br />Mr. Samuel noted that setback restrictions applied, based <br />on the City's shoreland management overlay district; and <br />he suspected the staff report contained a typographical <br />error, and should state "1,000 feet," rather than "100 <br />feet," but that staff could address that issue. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke, City Planner <br />Mr. Paschke noted that this issue was related to the land <br />use and zoning ordinance, not part of the AUAR, but that <br />the project engineer's analysis was correct, in that the <br />roadway must be located 30' from the high water mark. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke noted that the staff report did contain a <br />typographical error, and should state, "1000 feet," rather <br />