Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />s <br />3. Review and comment upon the adequacy of existing ordinances, including <br />zoning ordinances, to facilitate the Redevelopment. <br />Staff Comment: Per the attached memo fi�om Master Developer Rottlund Company <br />and RLK Kuusisto (Attachment D.3) , as well as other Master Developer's <br />representatives have provided opinions regarding the zoning, shoreland, and park <br />dedication ordinances and requirements. <br />4. Ascertain what approvals will be required from governmental agencies for <br />the Redevelopment. <br />Si�ff Comment: The Master Developer's consultant „���-.l�uusista has provided a <br />memo (Attachment D.3j regarding the approvals that will be required fi�om <br />governmental agencies to complete the redevelopment project. This approval <br />includes, but is not limited to, the following city approvals — I. Final City Council <br />Land Use Approval and Permits through the PUD process, 2. Contract for Public <br />Improven�e�zts and 3. the Redevelopment Agreement. <br />S. Investigate adequacy of utilities and streets and identify required <br />infrastructure changes; also review e�sting transportation plan to <br />determine adequacy. <br />Si�ff Comment: The Master Developer's consultant �,��-„(�uusisto has provided a <br />memo (Attuchment D. 3) regarding the adequacy of utilities and streets r�nd identifiecl <br />the required infi�astructure changes as part of the Phase Iredevelopment plan as well <br />as provided a draft transportation plan <br />6. Review existing environmental reports and determine if additional <br />environmental investigation is necessary. <br />Staff Comment: The Master Developer's consultant AET has provided a memo <br />(Attachment D. 4) which summarizes the existing environmental reports that have been <br />completed within the Twin Lakes Phase Iareas as well as list a number of ada'itional <br />environmental investigations planned prior to redevelopment. Roseville's <br />environrnental consultant, DPRA, reviewed the information and is in agreement with <br />AET but also noted that the additional environmental assessment noted is general and <br />no��-specific at this time. It is understood that additional assessment will include <br />adclressii2ga number ofconcerns that may require more detailed background review, <br />visual ohsewation, and/or soil andgroundwater investigcrtion� The City will request <br />tl�is detail as the process unfolds. Ultimately this information will be required as part <br />of any response action plan (RAP) required by the Minnesota Pollution Control <br />Agency and is required for the submission of grant applications. DPRA also <br />recommends that additional detail be provided regarding the costs estimates <br />including what assumptions are used regarding the volume of soil excavated,• tl2e <br />volume of ����� �f �� used,• ancl whether dewatering and vapor barriers are included <br />