10/26/2005 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 12, 2005 Grochala stated that this was volume control, and was the first time it had been intentionally addressed. Asleson added it was being dealt with adequately after eight years. Grochala noted that the AUAR was setting the limit, what were the resulting repercussions. They received good comments from the agencies. Dan Huff from the Friends of the Mississippi was invited staff to a meeting, but staff had already attended the workshop. Dan Huff indicated the organization had decided to concentrate on cities not adequately dealing with the issues. Grochala indicated that there was probably more internal struggle than with other agencies. He stated there was a 3 -2 vote for distribution, and commented it might not be approved. If approved, it would assist in the Comprehensive Plan update in the region. The other areas of the City were still unknowns. Kukonen asked for clarification that the scenarios were really aggressive. Grochala explained that each area needed a land use designation. They did not spend time analyzing the areas of low density. The focus was on the medium and high density areas, recognizing that things could change. Chair O'Dea questioned staff on comments that could be made to indicate the AUAR was a worst case scenario. She noted it was not explicitly stated that the scenarios were the extreme situation, and did not mean that development should occur this intensively. Grochala indicated there was no difference between the AUAR and the Comprehensive Plan for most people. Chair O'Dea clarified it needed to state that the AUAR was not and did not replace the Comprehensive Plan. O'Connell referred to page 5, "whenever a certain impact may or may not occur..." Grochala reviewed the requirement of the worst case scenario out of the Minnesota Rules. O'Dea mentioned it appeared the objections were that the document could not be supported, because the worst case scenario could not be supported. Grochala stated that the City now knew what could be mitigated, and the necessary measures for it. Kukonen inquired if "level of service standards" might come into play. Grochala affirmed that it would because the function of an intersection could be rated by measuring the time it takes to proceed through an intersection. In the mitigation plan, the levels of service standards were addressed on a global scale. He added the domino effect of micro - analysis was not good for long -term assumptions. In reviewing projects, if the developer met the requirements, the City did not have much of a margin of discretion. A developer could fund infrastructure improvements, or the project might not be approved because the present 3 DRAFT MINUTES