Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGSEPTEMBER 10, 2003 <br />5APPROVED MINUTES <br />Grundhofer stated that two shovels did not appear to be deep enough for an <br />accurate assessment of the sites possible HISTORICAL AND <br />ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Mr. Moberg responded that it was standard <br />practice and typically went back to the year 1938. <br />Grochala stated that after something had been disturbed for an extended period of <br />time, a phase II was unnecessary. Mr. Moberg agreed, the contractors were 106 <br />Group were known to be archeological professionals who were ultra-conservative <br />in their approach. <br />Grochala noted that SHPO confirmed their findings, which was a good indicator <br />nothing would be found. Asleson assured the Board that if something was found, <br />more study would be necessary. <br />Grochala recommended in the TRAFFIC section that the Northbound left turn <br />land was now required, to the word “desirable” should be removed. <br />Donlin addressed the MNDOT review #1, where it referred to “no acceptable <br />analysis has been submitted by the City or by a developer.” Grochala noted that <br />every three months they were submitted. <br />Mr. Moberg indicated that MNDOT had never acknowledged receiving the <br />documents. <br />Grochala stated that the traffic was at capacity during the afternoon peak time <br />with no signals. MNDOT’s concern was for stacking onto the highway. The <br />position of the City was that the developments needed to be separated. <br />Meanwhile, an overall study was being done. <br />Grochala addressed #3, in that there were physical issues to consider. This plat <br />would not have much impact on the interchange, because the ADT was twice as <br />high as was accurate. <br />Mr. Moberg inquired if the afternoon peak of vehicles per minute from the <br />development was included. Grochala confirmed that it was included. He <br />mentioned that when the Village is developed, the interchange would require <br />improvements. <br />The Board reviewed the comments from the Metropolitan Council and MPCA <br />with no further comments or recommendations. <br />Donlin made a motion to forward comments and the recommendation that an EIS <br />was not required. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried <br />unanimously. <br />6.DISCUSSION ITEMS