CC_Minutes_2008_0825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 25, 2008 Page 12 Councilmember Ihlan opined her support of the motion, as long as she was as- sured the City would be able to recover their money. City Attorney Anderson assured Councilmembers that the City, as a taxing au- thority, would be able to recover their money, it was only a question of when they would receive that reimbursement. Roll Call Ayes: Thlan; Pust; Roe; Willmus; and Klausing. Nays: None. Recess Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened at 7:19 p.m. d. Consider Citizen Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Applewood Pointe Subdivision Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon noted that on August 14, 2008, staff had received a Citizen's Petition for an EAW for the Applewood Pointe development located at 3008 and 3010 Cleveland Avenue from the Envi- ronmental Quality Board (EQB); with the EQB determining that the City of Roseville was the appropriate Responsible Government Unit (RGU). Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Community Development Department and City Attorney had reviewed the citizen petition and found that the project was exempt from environmental review as outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.4600 (2) (E). Mr. Trudgeon noted that the reason for the exemption was that the subject prop- erty was within the study area for the Twin Lakes Business Park Final AUAR Update (both in the origina12000/2001 AUAR and the update completed in 2007) and thus has already been subjected to environmental review; with that analysis and review detailed in the staff report dated August 25, 2008. Mr. Trudgeon advised that further shade study, while potentially an area of con- cern, was not a requirement or an anticipated part of environmental paperwork and was not within mandatory thresholds for study. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the next step in the petition process would be for the City to pass a resolution noting that the project was exempt; and as the RGU, de- nying the petition. Mr. Trudgeon cautioned that, according to Mr. Jon Larsen of the EQB, and concurred by the City Attorney, if the City were to independently pursue further shade studies based on petition perceptions that this was a negative environmental impact, the City may face potential litigation by the project's pro- poser. Councilmember Thlan advised that an e-mail had been forwarded to the City Man- ager, from the petitioner's spokesman (Mr. Suh), originating from Jon Larsen of the EQB summarizing the issues the council must consider in determining whether AUAR applies to this project or whether further environmental review is