Laserfiche WebLink
(RGU) ti�at wi11 need to e�s�re tl�at those measures are taken as develppment �caurs. <br />2.6 The AUAR appraach to environ�enia� review was recocnmended over xnore parcel <br />speci�c approaches sue� as an EAW or EIS f�r several reasnns: <br />a. It req�ir�s the technical rigar of an EIS, the most rigarous form of review, but <br />uses the convenie�t warksheet" format of an EAW. <br />b. Unlztce arz E�� or EAW, an AUAR requires mifigation of ttae �raject's <br />enviranmenial impact�. <br />c. An AUAR addresses i�npac�s of future development, as wei� as of the propnsed <br />prnject. <br />d. As a result, future prajects i� a.rk AUAR study area �ay na� require further <br />detail�d en�ironmentai re�iew, if they are cansistent wit� orig�al AtJAR <br />ass�ungtians, their impac�s do not exceed i�ase ar�ticipatcd by t�� AUAR and <br />miti�atinn measures are izn�alemented, as req�red by the AUAR. <br />e. This type af prac,�ss is mare proactive and visionaty and provides far a�nore <br />conaprehe�sive master plan. In additior�, the process removes a rede�elopzz�aent <br />barrier by decreasing the env�ronzz�ental re�iew process far praject� by sia marnkhs <br />to a year. Ti�is saui�gs in ti�as ean be very significant in �e si�e selectian prpcess <br />for major carparations. <br />3.a StiNtMARY OF FIND�NGS <br />3.1 An execu,tive suz�amary of �he AUAR tl�€at explains th� ksy �ndings o� the Twi� �,akes <br />Master �'la� tin t�e envixoz��nt is attache� {A�tacl�tne�t #2). Tl�e full AUAR has <br />been ava�lable or� t�e City r7veb site, at the Roseville �,ibrary and City Ha�l. �t was also <br />sent ta state agencies and �aunding units af government. <br />4.0 COIi�MENTS RECJEiVED <br />4.1 Three respor�es attached (Aitachmen� #3} vu'ere receiv�d by the Metropolitan <br />Council, Minnesota Depar�r�ent of Natura� Resources and �'redrickson & Byron, P.A. <br />(representing the Regan property inxerests). Al� a� ttae cor►�ents ar�d �nit�gation <br />su�g�stions received are �dc�ressed in the review nf th� cornm�nts and in a mitigatior� <br />ptar►. A brief summary af the eomments are as follnws: <br />4.2 Metra�crlitar► Counci�: T�e Metropolitatt Cv�ncii's staff review cnncluded that tt�e <br />AUAR was inco�nplete regarding the wastewater. Specif�cally t%ey wauld like to <br />1�ow the impact tn tl'�e ll+ietropoiita�� Disposal System far the e�tire City rat�er tha� <br />j�st in the developrnent area based �pon the future demand created by the Tw� �.alces <br />deveIopment. Other revi�ws by Parks an� Open Spaee, Transpartat�on, and Water <br />Resonrces conc�uded that the pian appears to be corr�plete in regards to regianal <br />policies, plans and eanc�r�s. However, each staff review provided st►ggest�ons <br />regarding de�elopmen� practices to r�duce enviz�anmental iz�pacts in ihe area. The <br />issues and suggeskinns are adc�ressed in the miti�ation plan r�garding waste wa�er, <br />prntectio� of natural f�a�re r�vith proper buffers, txaii systems, parklaz�d, naffic <br />r�►itigations, i�tereep�or �rotection and tec�aology in address�ag water runoff. <br />PF3232 ». RCA(0626QI) Page 2 of 6 <br />