pf_03283 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CAMPBELL KNUTSON ff:~tf'3 FYI Professional Association Attorneys at Law Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M, Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik (651) 452~5000 Fax (651) 452~5550 January 17, 2001 Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K, Brokl* John F. Kelly Matthew J. Foli Marguerite M. McCarron Gina M, Brandt * Also licerued in Wisconsin Mr. Gregg Downing Environmental Quality Board Room 300, Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Gregg: I enjoyed our conversation yesterday regarding the environmental review process and I appreciate your willingness to assist me in reviewing a development proposal pending in the City of Roseville. As I indicated to you, the City had previously prepared and reviewed a mandatory EA W for a development/redevelopment project that was well below the mandatory EIS threshold. A negative declaration was issued and most of the individual development parcels within the area were built on consistent with the approvals. However, prior to fInal buildout, the developer and a prospective purchaser of one of the sites in the development approached the City to amend the project to increase the size of one of the buildings planned to be built. Because the larger building did not cause the EIS threshold to be exceeded, the City approved the modifIcation. Subsequent to that event, the City received an additional request to approve larger buildings on two more parcels within the development area. The proposed buildings, while by themselves insufficient to warrant the preparation of an EA W, are of suffIcient size/space to exceed the EIS threshold if they are aggregated with the previously studied and approved project. In short, this situation seems close if not identical to a situation which previously arose regarding the interpretation of Minnesota Rules, particularly parts 4410.4300 and 4410.4400 (see enclosed letter dated May 27, 1998 from you to Peter Beck). As you know, 4410.4300 provides that: If the proposed project is an expansion or additional stage of an existing project, the cumulative total of the proposed project and any existing stages or components of the existing project must be included when determining if a threshold is met or exceeded if construction was begun within three years before the date of application for a permit or approval from a governmental unit for the expansion or additional stage Suite 317 · Eagandale Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121