Laserfiche WebLink
William J.Ma linen <br /> July 9,2012 <br /> Page 5 <br /> that it is denying preliminary plat approval until it reviews the issues raised in the appeals <br /> of the June 21, 2012, decision by the Community Development Department. <br /> 3. THE CITY SHOULD DENY TEE PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL THE <br /> MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS DETER1VCINES THAT THE AUAR <br /> REMAINS VALID. <br /> RGR has challenged the City's May 21, 2012, determination that the Wal-Mart <br /> project is exempt from environmental review under MEPA. That challenge is cugently <br /> pending in the Minnesota Cottrt of Appeals. One of the grounds for the challenge is that <br /> Alternative Urban Areawide Review ("AUAR") is no longer valid as a "substitute form <br /> of environmental review" and that an EAW must be prepared for the Wal-Mart projedt <br /> because the City has not amended the AUAR and its plan AN mitigation as required by <br /> Minn. R. 4410.3610. The Community Development Department's June 21, 2012, <br /> decision relies heavily upon the adequacy of the AUAR. Because the adequacy of the <br /> AUAR is in,question,the City should issue specific findings under Minn. Stat. § 462.358, <br /> subd. 3b; that it is denying preliminary plat approval until it has the benefit of a judgment <br /> from the Minnesota Court of Appeals that the AUAR remains adequate. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Thaddeus R. i oot <br />