Laserfiche WebLink
MAY-23-2807 10:42P FROM: • <br />T�517927070 P:2�5 <br />under Minnesota Statute. Within that context no items were desGribed as <br />incomplete beyond the single requirement for a Division of Land <br />application in the April 12th letter by M�. Paschke. That requirement was <br />met. <br />2. Item "a"_ After oonsulting with engineering firms and Mr_ Gregg Downing af <br />#he State of Minnesota Environmental Quality Board i find no support for <br />your assertion that this applicati�n will be required to undertake an <br />Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAWj. ! 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 incamplete and not only a <br />future discussion item. If the City Council were ta complete a finding <br />sufficient to require an EAW fram an authoriz�d authority, assuming the <br />AUAR was not yet completed, I would be willing consider undertaking <br />such a requirernent. <br />3. Item "b". The Division of Land application submitted provided, as per Mr. <br />Paschke's request, dedication �f the Right of Way (ROW) for the <br />proposed Twin Lakes Parkway and M�unt Ridge Raad_ The dedicated <br />land has a value of approximately $70,a00. Mr. Paschke infarmed me thai <br />the C+ty does not believe they have any abligation to compensate me for <br />the land dedicated ta the unplanned roadways, <br />4. Item "c _ The desire of the City to manage traffiic is appropriate and <br />understandable and I have consistently stated 1 would accept <br />responsibility for the �easonable costs of establishing any Gity Council <br />required pubfic impr�vement resultirtg from the appro�al of my applicatian_ <br />The use of the word "temporary" in my applicatian, with regard to the <br />ingresslegress point in the Divisian of Land application, is anly intended to <br />canvey my willingness tQ the future closure of that access provided the <br />alternative paint of access is delivered by the �ity. <br />5. ltem "d"_ I find nothing no#ed as incomplete in my review of yaur reference <br />to the definition of Planned Unit Development and have repeatedly <br />requested what characteristics of "flexible, creafive, and/or efficient" justify <br />your inference the application is incomplete. Is this another incvmplete <br />item or a discussion point? <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />5123/2007 <br />