CC_Minutes_2004_1206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting - 12/06/04 Minutes - Page 22 than would be required under the master plan upon which the AUAR was based, since the proposal called for housing adjacent to Langton Lake Park and would require that subsoil be cleaned to the highest MPCA and health standards. Mayor Klausing noted that the AUAR had assumed multi-story professional and medical office space, which would not have required the subsoil to be cleaned to the same standard as residential property uses. Mayor Klausing noted that a number of factors listed by the petitioner for ruling the AUAR invalid were not even valid considerations (i.e., alleged failure to comply with RoseviUe's ordinances regarding green space, shoreland and park dedication were not listed in Rule 4410 concerning whether an AUAR remained valid; alleged zoning incompliance with the Comprehensive Plan; or alleged lack of diversification of the City's tax base). Mayor Klausing spoke more specifically to Rule 4410, noting his personal concern regarding environmental impa~ts of proj ects undertaken by the City Council, but his thorough research and study of the information provided in relation to the petition had not allowed him, in all good conscience, to make such a finding to rule the AUAR invalid, or to order the completion of an EA W. Mayor Klausing reviewed his specific findings related to the etition as follows: 1. Concerning the allegation of more roadway, there is less roadway under this ro osal than assumed under the AUAR. 2. Regarding the location of the Parkway, there is no evidence that the ro osed ali nment has an increased environmental im act. 3. As to wildlife protection, there is no proposal to change the habitat. It is the surrounding area that is to be changed and that is a change for the better. 4. The petition sites the discovery of TCE. The AUAR specifically anticipated the discovery of further pollutants. Also, I think it is a better policy to remediate that ollution rather than allowin it to remain. 5. Although the petitioners mention it twice, Minnesota Rule 7050 has not been adopted. Alto, the project will still have to comply with the MPCA NPDES re uirements. 6. Concerning an increase in the number of housing units, this is another example of "up being down." We cannot move forward because we need additional environmental study because this proposal has additional housing. But what do the petitions offer as an alternative: an option with even more housing. Again, the purpose of this review is to determine whether further environmental study is needed. Clearly, a proposal that reduces the impact on the environment should not be subject to a different stud.