CC_Minutes_2008_0825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 25, 2008 Page 14 Councilmember Ihlan opined that there was no evidence that the dimensions and height of this project were taken into consideration, or that they were within the scope, of the AUAR Update. Councilmember Roe opine that if the AUAR Update mentioned a known project that the project itself was taken into account. City Attorney Anderson advised that his analysis was involved, not so much as suggested by Councilmember Ihlan in supporting a revised AUAR; but noted that the exemption was for projects for which review had occurred or was occurring under the AUAR; and applicable under Minnesota Rules 4410.3610, addressing development projects within boundaries of the area and consistent with develop- ment assumptions. Mr. Anderson advised that the standard to be considered by the RGU was whether an exemption applied; and noted that since the project was listed, along with the residential units, as part of the three scenarios in the AUAR, the environmental review had already occurred. Mr. Anderson advised that, even if the City Council were to determine that since passing the AUAR Update in Oc- tober of 2007, that new information demonstrating assumptions of background conditions were in error and that the RGU needed to open the AUAR for revision and more environmental review, they would still deny the petition and open the AUAR. At this time, Mayor Klausing opened the meeting for public comment. Public Comment Sanwon Suh, 1960 Brenner Avenue (north side of subject property) Mr. Suh noted submission of the neighborhood petition, containing 32 signatures, regarding Applewood Pointe at Langton Lake, a proposal fora 93-unit coopera- tive housing development by United Properties (PF07-006) at 3008 and 3010 Cleveland Avenue N, Roseville, MN. Mr. Suh provided his perception of Mr. Larsen's comments in the previously distributed a-mail, based on the exemption rule; and noted the comment from Mr. Larsen of the EQB that any decision of the RGU could be challenged by an interested party by filing a declaratory judgment action in district court within 30 days of the RGU decision. Mr. Suh proceeded to highlight information included as attachments in the peti- tion; concerns of the proposed zoning designation; height and width of the pro- posed building; and alleged inconsistencies with the AUAR study and maps. Mr. Suh presented extensive data that he'd personally researched regarding visual impacts and solar access concerns of the neighborhood; concluding by opining that the proposed single block building of 60 plus feet in height and 620 feet long was not acceptable next to single-family residential homes; further opining that the proposed development would substantially impact its neighbors; that the exist- ing AUAR studies were performed under different assumptions and exemption