Laserfiche WebLink
(RGU) that will need to ensure that those measures are taken as development occurs. <br />2.6 The AUAR approach to environmental review was recommended over more parcel <br />specific approaches such as an EAW or EIS for several reasons: <br />a. It requires the technical rigor of an EIS, the most rigorous form of review, but <br />uses the convenient worksheet" format of an EAW. <br />b. Unlike an EIS or EAW, an AUAR requires mitigation of the project's <br />environmental impacts. <br />c. An AUAR addresses impacts of future development, as well as of the proposed <br />proj ect. <br />d. As a result, future projects in an AUAR study area may not require further <br />detailed environmental review, if they are consistent with original AUAR <br />assumptions, their impacts do not exceed those anticipated by the AUAR and <br />mitigation measures are implemented, as required by the AUAR. <br />e. This type of process is more proactive and visionary and provides for a more <br />comprehensive master plan. In addition, the process removes a redevelopment <br />barrier by decreasing the environmental review process for projects by six months <br />to a year. This savings in time can be very significant in the site selection process <br />for major corporations. <br />3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS <br />3.1 An executive summary of the AUAR that explains the key findings of the Twin Lakes <br />Master Plan on the environment is attached (Attachment #2). The full AUAR has <br />been available on the City web site, at the Roseville Library and City HalL It was also <br />sent to state agencies and surrounding units of government. <br />4.0 COMMENTS RECEIVED <br />4.1 Three responses attached (Attachment #3) were received by the Metropolitan <br />Council, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Fredrickson & Byron, P.A. <br />(representing the Regan properiy interests). All of the comments and mitigation <br />suggestions received are addressed in the review of the comments and in a mitigation <br />plan. A brief summary of the comments are as follows: <br />4.2 Metropolitan Council: The Metropolitan Council's staff review concluded that the <br />AUAR was incomplete regarding the wastewater. Specifically they would like to <br />know the impact to the Metropolitan Disposal System for the entire City rather than <br />just in the development area based upon the future demand created by the Twin Lakes <br />development. Other reviews by Parks and Open Space, Transportation, and Water <br />Resources concluded that the plan appears to be complete in regards to regional <br />policies, plans and concerns. However, each staff review provided suggestions <br />regarding development practices to reduce environmental impacts in the area. The <br />issues and suggestions are addressed in the mitigation plan regarding waste water, <br />protection of natural feature with proper buffers, trail systems, parkland, traffic <br />mitigations, interceptor protection and technology in addressing water runoff. <br />PF3232 -. RCA(062601) Page 2 of 6 <br />