Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2004 <br />Smith inquired if the pond was raised. O’Dea stated she believed it was a <br />collector. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen questioned Ms. Penner if there would be any permanent residents. <br />Ms. Penner indicated they wanted to make it a residence for developmentally <br />disabled individuals. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen inquired about parking requirements for the residence. Asleson <br />answered that it would be based on its use. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen asked when construction would begin. Ms. Penner indicated the <br />church needed to know if it could be zoned for it. She noted that it could be <br />thought of as two developments. <br /> <br />Asleson inquired if the church would be running the residence. Ms. Penner <br />responded that it would be managed by a corporation of the denomination. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen stated that he would like to have a field study done to make sure <br />there were no rare plant species. <br /> <br />Grundhofer asked if it needed to be done in June. Asleson stated that it could be <br />done earlier. <br /> <br />Ms. Penner stated that they were told that they needed to comply with the <br />recommendations of the Boards and be flexible on the position of the building. <br /> <br />Asleson expressed concern on the timing of the Northern and Southern phases of <br />the site. Ms. Penner answered the Northern section was required to go through <br />Metropolitan Council, and 2004 requests were filled. They were told by the City <br />to bring both phases in together. There was a possibility that one might be <br />approved while the other could be denied. <br /> <br />Grundhofer noted that funding would need to be procured for the residence. She <br />inquired if the homes would help fund the residence. Ms. Penner responded that <br />they would be separate. The homes would help fund an expansion in the <br />sanctuary. <br /> <br />Smith referred to Attachment 6 about the meaning of the blue lines. He inquired <br />if the residents would be on the floodplain and would there be FEMA issues. <br />Asleson responded the interest of the Board was the hydrologic component. <br /> <br />Grundhofer referred to the first large attachment and concerned the upland <br />setbacks on Lot 9 and Lot 7. She asked if fill would be needed to bring them up <br />to street level. Asleson answered that there was a grading area, and they did not <br />want garages downhill. <br /> <br />3 APPROVED MINUTES