Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 12/04/06 <br />Minutes - Page 23 <br /> <br />staffs request for development of another scenario; and <br />questioned the additional expenses. Mr. Sands adamantly <br />suggested that the AUAR go no further without additional public <br />discussion, specifically inclusion of an extensive amount of retail <br />in the Twin Lakes business park. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark, with due respect, noted that the current AUAR was <br />over five years old and had expired. <br /> <br />Mr. Sands spoke in support of staff alternative identified as 3.l.B, <br />elimination of Scenario 1B from the AUAR Update. <br /> <br />Tam McGehee, 67 Mid Oaks <br />Ms. McGehee advised that she had diligently read the AUAR <br />Draft, and concurred with Mr. Sands, opining that it would be a <br />simple matter to update when necessary; that the FBI proposal <br />would work on the Dorso site; and that there was no need to <br />update the AUAR at this time. Ms. McGehee further opined that <br />this was a ridiculous expenditure of public funds; and opined that <br />City Attorney Anderson's comments related to EQB rules were <br />inaccurate. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing questioned Ms. McGehee's expertise as an <br />environmental attorney. <br /> <br />Ms. McGehee took issue with Mayor Klausing's question; <br />advising that she was "very familiar with AUAR's, <br />Comprehensive Plans and Master Plans," and concurred with Mr. <br />Sands' suggestion that Scenario IB should be removed for a quick <br />update and no more expenditure of public funds; and questioned <br />the mitigation strategies listed in the Draft AUAR Update. <br /> <br />Ms. McGehee threatened to go to court if necessary, opining that <br />the proposed Draft AUAR Update was not an update, and <br />questioned the underlying methodology and changes to the entire <br />document, exceeded densities, and adding additional retail and <br />gasoline storage tanks in a Brownfield area. Ms. McGehee noted <br />that information was being gathered and would be forthcoming to <br />determine if Langton Lake would be referred to as an impaired <br />water by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the <br />Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); and assertions in <br />