07/30/2003 Environmental Board Minutes

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 7 APPROVED MINUTES would have the same document to review. The comments must be addressed, and the information needed to be accurate. He clarified the two separate processes occurring, the EAW and the Plat Process. Grundhofer stated the citizen petitioned for the EAW so she should receive the right to comment. Grochala indicated that the Board was requesting public comment prior to the public comment period. O’Dea clarified the concern of the petitioner was that if Council published the document it would mean tacit approval. O’Connell inquired if the petitioner waited, what would be the result. Asleson stated the issues and opinions probably would not change. Grochala indicated the project could still be denied, even if there was a decision against requiring an EIS. Ms. Bor stated it would be helpful if the City as the RGU could outline the process for the petitioner. Asleson answered one issue was that the process could be delayed by the developer, so there could be a huge timeline. Ms. Bor mentioned some agencies would not comment if there were no specific plans. If Rice Creek Watershed District indicated there were no environmental concerns, it would have an impact on the perception. Grundhofer referred to p.2, #6, and mentioned it was not in accordance with the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The answer occurred later in the EAW, but she was not satisfied with the response. • The project falls within the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Chair Kukonen indicated the project purpose should be explained further on p. 3,c. Asleson responded the question referred to the standpoint of the developer. There was no need to explain further because it was not a governmental unit. Chair Kukonen noted only the Bridge permit had been approved. O’Dea inquired about the expired Land Development Plan Permit. Grochala explained that they have to reapply to Rice Creek Watershed District. Ms. Seebold mentioned the Comprehensive Plan had several amendments to accommodate a certain builder for exemption and would apply to Birch Street as well. Grochala stated the area addressed low density residential, but the reference was for the moratorium, and not the Comprehensive Plan. Essentially they would be able to go forth during the moratorium with the process.