2006_1023_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

•••C�A61Y�i�t11L11G•¢7�n•wa�Rxxt - �V�I�'Y��_L��iY�PlB'.•'.�{c�t.�..7Lti'�:Ir_: �i�l.^7rCY [��IFSk�i7i2}Il��l�ii T�l S:�].'li S.7 �l MEMORANDUM DATE: October 16,2006 TO: John Stark, Community Development Director, City of Roseville FROM: Ciara Schlichting, AICP. Senior Planner, C�5�1/Bnnestroa RE: Twin Lakes Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Update You have asked for my opinion regarding whether updating the Twin Lakes AL.WR or requiring a projectspecific BS is preferred. The ALJ�R process can substitute for any Environmental Assessmem Worksheet (�AW} or Environmental I mpact Statement (�IS) required for a specific project (e,g„ the Rottlund Homes, Inc. project), provided that the project complieswith the Twin Lakes AL.�R Update assumptions and mitigation plan (MinnesotaRules A4'10-�61a subp 2). I t is my opinion that updating the 2001 Twin Lakes ALJ�R is preferred for the followingreasons: 1. An � s a hybrid of the EAW and BS review process. The � uses a standard list of questions adapted from the EAW form and requires a level of analysis comparable to an BS (MinnesotaRules 4410.3610subp 4). i� s importantto understand that the level of analysis required for an AI.�R is no less rigorous or detailed than that for an EIS. 2, An PI.�R is a comprehensive planning tool that reviews the cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a given area, whereas �I5s are best suited for distinctprojects with environmentalimpacts that do not overlap. The AL.WR can reviewboth the RottlundHomes project � well � the redevelopment envisionedin the Comprehensive Plan. Updating the 2001 AI.�R will provide a more comprehensive anaiysis of environmentalimpacts � it will address the entire 270-acre Twin Lakes area compared to preparing an BS limited to the 56-acre Rottlund Homes redevelopment area.ln my opinion, an BS for the Rottlund Homes project is not preferred � the environmental impacts o f this project overlap with the environmentalimpacts of redevelopmentthroughoutthe Twin Lakes area (e.g., traffic, noise, and stormwater issues cross project boundaries). 3. The Court o f Appeais rulina determinedthat the 2001 Twin Lakes ALJ�R was not a valid :U�: �:� -Yi i ri aF ent�I�GinIYiEl1��i FE4' �Vd fOf �f1B �� E'rI�US �`�tta'0 -t �Plt � pr�s�rt that �va5 � ��=:i t� the Gt�� r� �05 s.r�e t'r!e n�l•r�� of ��tti�r�d Grt�: =�� i�tc� e'�� T�� r� _akt�� Master Plan, which the Court determined was a comprehensiveplan update that would allow an increase in the development levels assumed in the 2001 AI.�R, triggers a mandatory update to the 2001 Twin Lakes PI.�R under Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 subp 7.B. Updating the 2001 Twin Lakes ALJ�R can serve as a valid substitute form of environmentalreviewfor the Rottland Homes project submittedto the City on October 6,2006. The Twin Lakes PI.�R update will aalso provide an opportunity to revisit the development scenarios and the blocks/su�areas to address the Cour�s ruling. 4. Preparing and processing individual EAW/Elss for projects � they are submittedto the City for review and approval is likely to be more cos�y (directcosts and/or sta ff time)than preparing an update to the 2001 AIJAR The City would be the F�I.J for each �AW/�IS responsible for preparing and processing each document. Given the size of the Twin Lakes area, numerous �AW/�ISs wouid be required. �� �� � ��