Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 28, 2004 <br />Asleson questioned if the courtyard was gravel. O’Connell answered that it was <br />snow covered so she could not identify the composition. <br /> <br />Asleson indicated that the roof water should be directed into the yard, instead of <br />impervious areas. <br /> <br />O’Connell mentioned that the courtyard appeared farther from the road than <br />shown on the map. <br /> <br />O’Dea recommended no importing or exporting of soils without City approval. <br />Chair Kukonen added that downspouts from the rooftops be directed to pervious <br />yard areas rather than impervious areas. <br /> <br />O’Dea recommended that Rice Creek Watershed District gives input on impact <br />mitigation. Bor added that they comment on the ditch easement. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen mentioned that he would like to see a minimum 50-foot buffer <br />covering the existing drainage and signage. Asleson responded that the area <br />needed bushes and shrubs, while the trees would be between Lot 1 and Lot 2. <br /> <br />Bauman inquired about the drainage easement would prohibit the removal of <br />vegetation. There were concerns with the slope of the ditch. <br /> <br />Asleson stated there were pines with no ground cover in the area. O’Dea added <br />that it was unknown if they were planning to add ground cover. <br /> <br />Asleson indicated a conservation easement could be recommended. <br /> <br />Bauman stated it was not shown that the county MPDES rules were followed. <br /> <br />O’Dea stated that signage was recommended. Grundhofer expressed concern that <br />it not only concerned removal, but also prohibit filling in the area. She added that <br />they needed to follow the requirements of the Shoreland Management Overlay <br />Ordinance. <br />O’Dea noted in the Background section the plan was to plat 4 lots. O’Connell <br />stated that it was zoned for multi-use. Councilmember Carlson indicated that <br />Rehbein owned the land, and could develop there. She recalled a gas station was <br />mentioned. <br /> <br />O’Connell remarked the road was in such close proximity to the road to the City <br />Hall that they could come through. She inquired if it was possible to state the <br />recommendations were for the three homes, but there were no comments for on <br />the multi-use. Asleson answered that the Board was not addressing the issue of <br />mixed-use and at that point was only concerned with its proximity to the lake. <br /> <br />3 APPROVED MINUTES