Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 <br />could be an issue of exceeding the allowable fill for a wetland if one was found to be <br />present. <br />Kukonen indicated he had driven by the property and believed the Watershed District <br />should be contacted. He indicated he thought there could be other places to build. <br />Chair Lanyon indicated the two issues were that they may need to fill the area, and they <br />would be adding to the impervious surfaces. <br />Kukonen inquired if there was a model to look at such as Clearwater Creek with the <br />swails. <br />Chair Lanyon stated that the Board should approve the second paragraph as the <br />recommendation, with the addition that the City come up with examples in the City to <br />show homeowners. <br />Kukonen moved to pass the second paragraph as the Board's recommendation. <br />Trehus added that the concerns should be a condition of approval., °He noted that the <br />Planning and Zoning recommends approval or denial, and do not limit themselves to <br />passing on recommendations. He urged the Board to be clear in its recommendations, and <br />submitted that an addition to the recommendation could be that it did not support or <br />opposing the variance request. <br />Grundhofer inquired at what point the Watershed District coineanto the process. Asleson <br />answered that they would be contacted if a wetland were built over a certain number of <br />feet.{:......._ , <br />f <br />O'Connell added if the project is 5,00Q+sq. ft. o less the Watershed District did not have <br />to be contacted. kr.5 <br />Grochala stated that the request wasfor a variance, so the recommendation could be <br />denial if the project impacted a:wetland. <br />rya F <br />'f it <br />Trehus noted that they were `asking for a variance in setback and could possibly be a <br />drainage easement Grochala presented a diagram of the plan and explained that the <br />proposed building was' not located within a drainage easement. He explained that the <br />zoning ordinanceTequired accessory buildings to be located no closer to the front <br />propertyline than theiprinciple building. <br />Grundhofer stated' the map had no scale. <br />Grochala explained the ponds were somewhat limiting the placement of the structure, he <br />was estimating the placement at about 30 -ft. from the main structure. <br />5 <br />