Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 <br />Donlin inquired about the reason for the deletion of the criteria (7)(p.2-5), <br />because she thought that they were helpful. Mr. Brixius responded that most <br />were addressed in the new requirements. They were revised to move to more <br />quantifiable factors. <br />Donlin asked if "H" was replaced. Grundhofer answered that it had become <br />(#1)). <br />• Donlin recommended that with the current standards under #7, Council should <br />add the previous "f" and "h" sections. <br />Mr. Brixius stated that under the new standards "b" addressed compatibility. <br />Donlin responded that it needed clarification. <br />Mr. Brixius directed the Board to Subdivision 4 on p.2-12. He indicated that <br />there was a sunset clause in it that allowed for a use until it became obsolete, and <br />discussed the provisions. An example of an interim use would be a driving range. <br />The 60 day -rule was effective for variances. If a decision was made by staff, not <br />needing Council approval, there could be an appeal through the Planning and <br />Zoning Board (p.2-15). <br />Mr. Brixius stated in Subdivision 5, the criteria were similar to the Conditional <br />Use Permit, in order to reduce costs of administrative review. <br />Donlin asked for clarification on "minor " Mr. Brixius indicated that it would <br />have various definitions depending on the zoning district. <br />Mr. Brixius stated the City wanted more documentation for Site and Building <br />Plan Reviews, so the requirements were itemized in Subdivision 6. In addition, <br />more site plans would receive an administrative review. Performance Standards <br />(E)(p.2-31) assumed that not all could be accomplished in-house. <br />Mr. Brixius indicated for Subdivision 8, the Certificate of Occupancy (p.2-37), <br />was done at the time of occupancy, or they could escrow the requirements for <br />when it became seasonable. <br />O'Connell inquired about the need for a tree preservation provision in <br />Subdivision 5, page 2-31, #8. Mr. Brixius responded that it was included in the <br />Tree Plan. <br />Donlin asked if people could be misled and believe they could attempt to prove <br />that trees needed to be removed. Mr. Brixius answered that if there was a <br />conflict in the ordinance, the more stringent would be upheld. He did not believe <br />there would be a conflict very often because once the Tree Plan had been <br />approved, there was a value of two trees for every one lost. <br />3 APPROVED MINUTES <br />