Laserfiche WebLink
<br />a) MnDOT's comment letter was provided on June 14,2001, and the <br />Council adopted the AUAR on August 13,2001. Thus the worst <br />case scenario envisioned at the time of the adoption of the AUAR <br />recognized this limitation. <br /> <br />b) SRF, the City's traffic engineering consultant, has determined that <br />the lack of a connection to Snelling has no impact on its traffic <br />analysis of the Twin Lakes Area, which shows levels lower than the <br />AUAR worst case scenario. <br /> <br />· The Council finds that the Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of <br />demonstrating that a "substantial change" has been proposed by the <br />Rottlund proposal that may result in increased adverse environmental <br />effects. <br /> <br />11. Regarding paragraph F of subpart 7 of Rule 4410.3610, Petitioners allege that the <br />development will occur on a schedule other than that envisioned in the AUAR. In <br />particular, Petitioners allege the Rottlund proposal is "rushed". The Council finds <br />this allegation unsupported by the Record for the following reasons: <br /> <br />· As the recitals in this Resolution demonstrate, the Twin Lakes <br />Redevelopment study and planning process has been ongoing for 16 years. <br /> <br />· The 2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan and the AUAR indicate that <br />development could begin in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area "as early <br />as 2002," thus the schedule for redevelopment has not been "rushed". <br />Neither is Rottlund's proposed construction schedule inconsistent with that <br />envisioned in the AUAR. <br /> <br />12. Regarding paragraph G of subpart 7 of Rule 4410.3610, Petitioners allege that the <br />discovery of TCE, the impending adoption of new 7050 rules, and the observation <br />of varied species of wildlife in Langton Lake Park constitutes "new information" <br />demonstrating the AUAR analysis is "substantially in error" and that <br />environmental effects have been "substantially underestimated". The Council <br />finds that these allegations lack merit for the following reasons: <br /> <br />. The alleged "new information" does not present a seriously different <br />picture of likely environmental impacts. <br /> <br />· The Twin Lakes Redevelopment area generally has been a known area of <br />environmental contamination based on past industrial and trucking uses; <br />The AUAR recognized the likelihood of the presence of contamination <br />throughout the area. <br /> <br />17 <br />