2004_1122_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting —11/08/04 DRAFT Minutes - Page 27 raise facts, not issues; and reviewed his suggested language in the letter to each party as it related to the process outlined above. "TO: Mr. Michael Noonan of Rottlund Homes — Minnesota as detailed below: RE: Twin Lakes Citizen Environmental Review Petition We are the City Attorney for the City of Roseville. On November 8, 2004, the Council adopted a procedure for addressing the above matter. The procedure is identified in our November 3 letter to the Council, a copy of which is attached. Please note the respective deadlines for submission of written materials. You should bring whomever you determine necessary to the November 22 meeting to properly respond to any questions that may arise in technical areas. We strongly encourage you, however, to designate one primary spokesperson to make the presentation on November 22. Based on our review of the Petition materials, the Petitioners assert the AUAR completed for the Twin Lakes area in 2001 is not valid for a number of reasons. Petitioners have raised the following specific allegations 1 this regard: 1) That the Twin Lakes Parkway location has moved north. 2) That an additional collector road, Mount Ridge Rod, has been added to the Project. 3) That the Twin Lakes Parkway design has changed from three/four lanes to two lanes for much of its length. 4) That the proposed uses have changed from predominately office to predominately retail and residential. 5) That Twin Lakes Parkway was identified in the AUAR to connect to Snelling. 6) That traffic volumes in the most recent SRF studies are greater than the AUAR contemplated. 7) That TCE has been discovered in groundwater. 8) That new rules exist governing water quality that were not in place at the time the AUAR was due. 9) That the hours of activity contemplated by the current development proposed differ from those envisioned by the AUAR. 10) That the visual impacts to neighboring properties will be different from those contemplated in the AUAR. We look forward to the information you will provide to assist us in the process. Very truly yours, Jay T. Squires Scott T. Anderson" Mr. Anderson advised that the RGU needed to review what was in the AUAR; whether it was still valid; and the legal standards upon which to base those determinations.