Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 <br />O'Connell stated that the plat showed a cul-de-sac, but no houses. Asleson clarified that <br />the cul-de-sac was shown as an outlot. <br />Mr. Hill stated that the plat was the same in the northeast corner, but the southern part <br />was excluded. <br />Grundhofer asked if the southern cul-de-sac was going to be built. <br />Trehus inquired about whether the other cul-de-sac met the R-1 specifications. Mr. Hill <br />responded it did meet the requirements without a variance. It hadb.een resubmitted to the <br />Watershed District because of a change in the grading plan. <br />Chair Lanyon stated that Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, were the same `as'previously seen. He <br />asked if the developer was planning 17 lots in the southernpart <br />Grundhofer asked if the ponds were part of the lots. Mr <br />part of the lots, but part of the easement. <br />O'Connell questioned where the lots ended. Mr <br />south of the easement, but on the lots. <br />answered that they were not <br />esponded that the ponds were <br />Donlin inquired if the residents would mow"around the pond and preserve the trees. Mr. <br />Hill answered that there would be a distributionof,information to the residents. He <br />assured the Board that the area next to ;the pond would remain undisturbed. <br />Chair Lanyon recommended that_sxgnage?should go up in the area for subsequent <br />residents. <br />Donlin indicated that she had reservations when a project comes up for review with two <br />phases involved evidenced by thecul de -sac. She noted there was neighborhood <br />opposition at the Monday highs meeti g. Donlin continued that there were plans to grade <br />the southern part, and she believed the action was premature. Grundhofer agreed that <br />there mi t,be trees there* <br />Mr. Hill clai ned that developing only half of the land was a risk he was willing to take. <br />Donlin stated`that, he was expecting a commitment of MUSA, and she has heard of <br />developers who were willing to take the risk, then filed to sue the city if the project was <br />denied. <br />Trehus inquired about the wetland buffering, noting there appeared to be considerable <br />wetlands, but no buffering. Mr. Hill answered that there was a fifty -foot setback from the <br />houses to the wetland. <br />Trehus stated that the setback should be from the property line. <br />5 <br />