Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 <br />Mr. Brixius indicated that tree preservation would now apply to custom graded <br />lots as well (a)(3-46). <br />Grundhofer questioned the meaning of the four inches of topsoil required <br />application (4,d)(p.3-44). Asleson answered that it was for disturbed areas. <br />Mr. Brixius suggested that it should probably read "applied to all disturbed <br />areas." Another change occurred on (p.3-53) to clarify the requirements to ensure <br />quality fences would be built. <br />Chair Kukonen expressed concern for light pollution from headlights with 10% of <br />the area open on fencing (p.3-54). Mr. Brixius explained that it was to ensure that <br />movement was not obstructed, and that creative placement could avoid lights in <br />windows. <br />Mr. Brixius continued that Subdivision 5 addressed off street parking, and had <br />been updated for green parking, and allowances for a peninsula. <br />Donlin inquired about the need for 2 parking spaces/bed in a hospital parking lot. <br />Mr. Brixius answered that one was for the patient and one for a nurse that was <br />standard. <br />Donlin questioned the need for 1 parking space/3 seats for a church. <br />Grundhofer stated that green parking should be a requirement for churches. Mr. <br />Brixius responded that it could be required on a case-by-case basis. <br />Mr. Brixius directed the Board to Subdivision 10 (p.3-83). The purpose of this <br />section was to ensure that accessory apartments were a part of the principle <br />structure, because utilities had to be present. Subdivision 11 (p.3-85) addressed <br />certification for drainage. Subdivision 13 (p.3-91) included the need for a buffer <br />of 300 feet from the closest property line of various locations where children <br />would be present. The minimum lot width of 330 feet was stated in (B,2)(p.5-1). <br />The section on feedlots was removed because it no longer applied. Section <br />(H)(p.5-8) addressed the fact that towers were limited in height, but not the height <br />of the antennas. <br />Grundhofer asked if the setbacks applied to patios. Mr. Brixius responded that <br />they were not allowed in the front yard. <br />Grundhofer expressed concern over the issue of 65% impervious. Mr. Brixius <br />stated that he had never seen 65% impervious, and attempted to use a formula to <br />come up with new numbers. <br />• Grundhofer recommended that staff attempt to decrease the percentage of <br />impervious on residential lots across the board (p.5-10). <br />7 APPROVED MINUTES <br />