Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. The AUAR worst case scenario included no specifically identified ponding <br />for treatment of surface water runoff (though it did require all proposals to <br />comply with all pertinent federal, state and local regulations); The Rottlund <br />proposal includes specifically identified treatment and infiltration ponds <br />which will serve to promote water quality - all ponds will be reviewed and <br />approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. <br /> <br />. SRF, the City's traffic engineering consultant, has reviewed and compared <br />the traffic impacts of the AUAR worst case scenario blend of uses, and the <br />Rott1und proposal. SRF has concluded that the RottIund Proposal would <br />result in less traffic and less traffic-related impact (noise, light, air <br />pollution) than the AUAR worst case scenario. <br /> <br />. The City Community Development Director, a professional planner with <br />30+ years planning experience, has offered his opinion that the Rottlund <br />proposal includes a greater percentage of "less intense" uses (more <br />housing-focused and less office-focused uses), thereby supporting a <br />conclusion that the Rottlund Proposal, in the context of total development <br />levels, is far less invasive and intense, from an environmental context, than <br />the AUAR worst case scenario. <br /> <br />· In terms of potential environmental impact and intensity of a development, <br />potential impacts typically involve levels and times of activity, traffic <br />(noise, light and air pollution), visual impacts (building size and height), <br />and the creation of impervious surface. <br /> <br />. For the reasons set forth above, there is both sufficient quantitative and <br />sufficient qualitative data available to the Council to determine whether the <br />aggregate environmental impact of the total development levels in the <br />Rottlund proposal will exceed those in the AUAR worst case scenario, <br />despite the differing blend of uses. <br /> <br />. The Council determines that the Record supports a conclusion thatthe <br />potential for adverse environmental effects is not greater when comparing <br />the "total development" (blend of uses) contemplated in the AUAR worst <br />case scenario with the "total development" (blend of uses) contained in the <br />Rottlund proposal. <br /> <br />. The Council determines that the Petitioners have failed to meet their burden <br />of demonstrating the AUAR is invalid. <br /> <br />14 <br />