Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 12/06/04 <br />Minutes - Page 18 <br /> <br />been copied to Mr. J ohannson. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing advised that Councilmember Ihlan's objection <br />had been duly noted. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough spoke in opposition to the motion; and as <br /> <br />a member of the judging panel, provided his written comment <br /> <br />outlining his rationale for determining the validity of the <br /> <br />Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) study and <br /> <br />Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) petition request. <br />"Comments on the Validitv of the 2001 AUAR." bv Councilmember Tom <br />Kouah. dated December 6. 2004: <br />1) My job is to protect the welfare of citizens - the burden of proof is on the <br />developer. We need to know what harmful chemicals and toxic materials <br />are in the Twin Lakes Area. We know there are hazardous materials in <br />this area. The environmental statement of 2001 is out-of-date. <br />2) I don't agree with the City Attorney's opinion that there is no substantial <br />change to the Comprehensive Plan. Big Box was not allowed when the <br />Council approved the 2001 change in the Comprehensive Plan. <br />3) A retail project of this size, with all the surface parking, will produce <br />excessive run-off of polluted liquids that will contaminate Langton Lake. <br />4) The traffic will be too much for the current state of the roads and <br />intersections to handle. The 2001 AUAR anticipated that roads would be <br />reconstructed, and intersections would be changed to handle the traffic. <br />No agreement is in place with either the County or the State to pay for <br />these changes as planned in the 2001 AUAR. <br />5) There are no plans to reduce or mitigate noise levels that already exceed <br />decibel standards. <br />6) We spent over $200,000 to Mr. Casserly for a financial package. We must <br />provide a thorough environmental review by a certified environmental <br />consultant. That would protect the City against future lawsuits, and would <br />protect those future residents moving into the housing in Twin Lakes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough concluded his comments by reiterating <br />that the EA W needs to be upgraded. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion; and <br />presented prepared written comments displayed by staff, and <br />offered into the record, and summarized her arguments for <br />further environmental review before approving the project; thus <br />granting the petition for an EA W. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan's written comments were as follows: <br /> <br />1) New information not known in 2001 or assumed in AUAR <br />· TCE groundwater contamination <br />· Amendments to water quality rules <br />· No Twin Lakes parkway connection to Snelling <br />· Impacts on Langton Lake Park and wildlife habitat not considered <br />