res_10265 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WHEREAS, on December 6,2004, the City Council discussed and deliberated this matter at its regular council meeting, and upon consideration of the entire Record in this manner as identified in Appendix A hereto, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Manager, the Council voted to deny the EA W Petition for the reasons set forth below; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, that it adopts and memorializes the following findings regarding the denial of the subject Petition; 1. On August 13, 2001, at a duly noticed public meeting, the Roseville City Council adopted, by its vote of 5-0, an Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) for the Twin Lakes study area. 2. The EQB accepted the AUAR as adequate. 3. Under EQB Rules, an AUAR constitutes an environmental review ofa proposed project area based on specified development assumptions. (Minn. Rule 4410.3610). Development within the proposed project area is exempt from further environmental review absent the existence of any of the conditions in Minn. Rule 4410.3610, subp. 7. 4. The A UAR demonstrated the results of environmental studies of a variety of environmental issues and concerns at Twin Lakes. 5. Minn. Rule 4410.3610, subp. 7 sets forth the following eight reasons for which an AUAR may be determined to be invalid, thus necessitating revisions to the adopted AUAR or preparation of an EA W: A. Five years have passed since the RGU adopted the original environmental analysis document and plan for mitigation or the latest revision. This item does not apply if all development within the area has been given final approval by the RGU. B. A comprehensive plan amendment is proposed that would allow an increase in development over the levels assumed in the environmental analysis document. C. Total development within the area would exceed the maximum levels assumed in the environmental analysis document. 11