Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Study Session - 11/20/06 <br />Minutes - Page 13 <br /> <br />Plan/Known Plans); and similar impacts; and comparisons were <br />made for numerous intersections with existing conditions; year <br />2030 with Scenario IA Build Condition projections and Year <br />2030 Scenario 1B Build Condition projections. <br /> <br />Additional discussion included surface water runoff impacts and <br />mitigation plans; and land cover/wildlife mitigation impacts and <br />mitigation plans. <br /> <br />The next steps were discussed: <br />· City Council determination that the AUAR update is <br />complete and accurate; <br />· City Council authorization of AUAR update for 10-day <br />comment period (by applicable agencies); <br />· AUAR update 10-day comment period; <br />· Respond to objections, if filed; <br />· And adoption of the Twin Lakes Business Park AUAR <br />Update. <br /> <br />Throughout the presentation, Councilmembers addressed related <br />questions for clarification by Mr. Stark or Ms. Schlichting; and <br />proposed Policy decisions for the City Council were outlined <br />within the document. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark clarified that Rottlund Homes was a principal in Twin <br />Lakes, LLC and the land use application submitted in October of <br />2006; and advised that it was not the intent of the applicant to <br />create confusion as to the identify of the applicant; and the <br />application had been resubmitted by Roseville Twin Lakes <br />Properties, LLC, the original applicant with whom the City has a <br />Development Agreement, to avoid future confusion. <br /> <br />City Council discretion was discussed regarding when they <br />approved the DRAFT document and authorized distribution <br />activating the comment period; the valid contract with DSU to <br />complete the DRAFT AUAR Update; and the land use <br />application and 60-day review period. <br /> <br />9.a Request of Councilmember Ihlan: Legal update and <br />discussion on status of Twin Lakes development agreement <br />now that the Court of Appeals decision is final - whether <br />