06/27/2001 Environmental Board Minutes

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus explained that Target would not be affected, only new submittals. Kukonen mentioned that a moratorium would inhibit arguments with developers. Donlin reviewed that several years ago the City enacted two back to back six-month moratoriums. Trehus added that with 450 units already in process, a moratorium was a needed step for the City. The motion carried unanimously. Trehus inquired of Grochala to review the Preservation Zoning District. O'Connell suggested the letter be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. Asleson indicated the Board could meet July 18, however it would be too early for comment on projects and applications. Chair Lanyon explained in order to comment on the Environmental Audit Worksheet, the Board should meet before July 23, 2001 with either a special meeting or an additional meeting. Since the Board was not having an impact on projects, the meeting could be moved to July 18, 2001.;: Grochala stated the Board could move the meeting to July 18, 2001 for comments on the Environmental Audit Worksheet, with the following meeting the secondweek in August because the Watershed District is meeting on July 25, 2001. The Council meets on the 13th and the 23`d for the Environmental Audit Worksheet .J` , a Chair Lanyon noted the Board would meet on;'toth July 18, 2001 and July 25, 2001. B. Environmental Board Goals 2001— This rtexn ;was discussed as part of Environmental Board Business A. tqcy f., C. Environmental Assessment Worksheet-Comments/Target/Ryan — This item was discussed as part of Environmental'Board Business A. D. Shade Tree Ordinance/Tree Preservation/Discussion — Asleson wrote the document with models used in the East because there was no working model in the State. The document included a tree preservation policy that was bound by the Council. It required the developer,:, to replace the -trees in public areas and developments. The City attorney advised against banks, and opposed the tree replacement. The issue of policy versus ordinance could be revisited. Grundhofer indicated that the definition of wood lot was a tree area of one acre and was under the tree preservation policy, with 25% of the area having large trees. She asked staff if the policy could apply to the oaks in Highland Meadows. Asleson answered it was included as a part of the zoning code in policy form and the developer had not complied. The policies were guidelines, but there was no means for enforcement. 9