CC_Minutes_2012_0521 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,May 21, 2012 Page 19 without adequate explanation, even with staff's analysis through the AUAR with respect to runoff and water quality. Councilmember Pust opined that this was a significant difference, and provided another good reason to take another look. Councilmember McGehee seconded Councilmember Pust's remarks; and opined that the AUAR was invalid, given changes from 25% to 15% in green space, and traffic impacts of the development exceeding what was called out in the AUAR. Councilmember McGehee opined that the traffic impacts had not been adequately studied, and this development was more than expected in this area, creating the need for more environmental review. Councilmember McGe- hee questioned whether the EAW was sufficient; and further opined that a new AUAR was needed if this one was found to be invalid. Councilmember Johnson spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that staff had proven to his satisfaction that the existing AUAR addresses his initial con- cerns. Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember Johnson, and thanked staff for their analysis. Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that the AUAR's worst case scenario was based on assumptions significantly worse than the impact of this proposed development. Since the purpose of the AUAR was to address wa- ter quality, Mayor Roe noted that the developer was required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District and other storm water handling regulations. Mayor Roe opined that the percentage of impervious coverage would not have signifi- cant impacts once water quality and storm water requirements had been met. Mayor Roe reiterated that the worst case scenario contemplated by the AUAR was significantly beyond the impacts of this development. Roll Call Ayes: Pust and McGehee. Nays: Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Motion failed. Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10986 (At- tachment E) entitled, "A Resolution Enunciating the Exemption of the Proposed Wal-Mart Development at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue from the Citi- zens' Petition for Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet." Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion, citing MN Rule 4410.3610, as addressed in her written comments dated May 21, 2012, previ- ously referenced, and based on Items B, C, D, G and H of those rules.