CC_Minutes_2008_0825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 25, 2008 Page 13 needed; and asked that all Councilmembers receive a copy for their review. City Manager Malinen distributed copies of the a-mail as a bench handout. Councilmember Ihlan provided her perspective on the review of this project, specifying areas of Minnesota Rules 4410.3610, Subpart 7, Items A through H, opining that the AUAR needed to be revised based on circumstances addressed in Items G and H (visual impacts; stormwater; wildlife habitats; and solar access), indicating new information relative to this particular project and as outlined in the citizen petition; and opining her support for the petition. At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Trudgeon provided a response to Coun- cilmember Ihlan's perceptions, noting that whether the project was determined exempt or not, the petition needed to show "significant" environmental effects. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the substantial deforestation addressed in the petition was in an area of low quality Oak forest, with non-native deciduous vegetation, representing mostly undesirable or invasive trees. Mr. Trudgeon addressed the 2004 listing as part of the petition, without date or identified location, of nesting areas in on the lake or in the park and not necessarily on the proposed project de- velopment site, with the only exception previously identified as an endangered species being the jumping spider. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the existing wetland was not in the best of shape, and that any new development would meet City Code and would be reviewed by the City Engineer and the Watershed District standards, and that water quality should improve based on those improved regula- tions versus existing conditions. Mr. Trudgeon noted that visual impact was more difficult to define; however, opined that it didn't represent an environmental impact, based on sufficient set- back requirements and screening; and appeared to be more of a land use issue of petitioners. Mr. Trudgeon questioned whether solar access could be addressed through an EAW, which consisted of a series of questions of similar format to the already-completed AUAR; and noted the provision of the developer in 2007 of their shade study. Councilmember Roe noted that the AUAR considered, as part of the scenarios, this specific project. Mr. Trudgeon noted that on page 7 of the AUAR Update, and in redevelopment scenarios, there were two known projects (i.e., the co-op and hotel); and advised that both projects were consistent with the AUAR. Councilmember Roe noted that the City Council had approved the General Con- cept for the project in June of 2007; and that the AUAR Update was adopted late 2007, and that a PUD similar to this project being considered later tonight was taken into consideration in development of the AUAR Update.