Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />under Minnesota Statute. Within that context no items were described as <br />incomplete beyond the single requirement for a Division of Land <br />application in the April 12th letter by Mr. Paschke. That requirement was <br />met. <br />2. Item "a". After consulting with erlgineering firms and Mr. Gregg Downing of <br />the State of Minnesota Environmental Quality Board i find no support for <br />your assertion that this application will be required to undertake an <br />Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA1l�. I have requested, from <br />your office, proof that an EAW has been required and your confirmation <br />that this issue is one that you consider to be incomplete and not only a <br />future discussion item. If the City Council were to complete a finding <br />sufficient to require an EAW from an authorized authority, assuming the <br />AUAR was not yet completed, I would be willing consider undertaking <br />such a requirement. <br />3. Item "b". The Division of Land application submitted provided, as per Mr. <br />Paschke's request, dedication of the Right of Way (ROW) for the <br />proposed Twin Lakes Parkway and Mount Ridge Road. The dedicated <br />land has a value of approximately $70,000. Mr. Paschke informed me that <br />the City does not believe they have any obligation to compensate me for <br />the land dedicated to the unplanned roadways. <br />4. Item "c". The desire of the City to manage traffic is appropriate and <br />understandable and I have consistently stated I would accept <br />responsibility for the reasonable costs of establishing any City Council <br />required public improvement resulting from the approval of my application. <br />The use of the word "temporary" in my application, with regard to the <br />ingress/egress point in the Division of Land application, is only intended to <br />convey my willingness to the future closure of that access provided the <br />alternative point of access is delivered by the City. <br />5. Item "d". I find nothing noted as incomplete in my review of your reference <br />to the definition of Planned Unit Development and have repeatedly <br />requested what characteristics of "flexible, creative, and/or efficient" justify <br />your inference the application is incomplete. Is this another incomplete <br />item or a discussion point? <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />5/23/2007 <br />