Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 31, 2004 <br />O’Dea discussed the significance of the greenway. Asleson added clarifying the <br />need for an upland connecting pathway. He recommended the low density with <br />an R-EC or Planned Development could bring more flexibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Black responded that the process needed to be clarified earlier on, because <br />considerable money had been invested to bring them to this point. The lots were <br />large, with large homes on them. Asleson reiterated the need for more flexibility, <br />and therefore recommended other zoning. <br /> <br />Mr. Black indicated he met with the neighbors, and their concerns centered on the <br />protection of trees near adjacent properties. <br /> <br />Asleson stated the lots could be smaller, that there was a market for smaller lots <br />with natural areas. Mr. Black responded that he wanted to meet with the Park <br />Board. The neighbors expressed their desire for the development to include links <br />with other paths. <br /> <br />Asleson clarified the desire of the City for the developer to create wildlife and <br />people corridors that are expanding the greenway definitions. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen questioned if a P.U.D. Conservation Development was more <br />desirable than a R-EC District. <br /> <br />Asleson stated that the greenway and the buffer were the two big issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Black indicated that to change the development to a P.U.D. was asking for a <br />lot. There was considerable money invested, and the approval process was risky. <br />Asleson responded the flexibility in lot sizes could achieve the goals of the Board. <br /> <br />Mr. Black offered to walk the property with Asleson. <br /> <br />Grundhofer inquired if the elm trees were a concern. Asleson answered that since <br />there was no control for the vector of the disease for the elm, they would soon be <br />lost regardless. <br /> <br />O’Dea questioned if there was a need for buffering around the wetlands. Asleson <br />answered that they were doing better than he thought on buffering. The NURP <br />ponds were a big concern that needed to be resolved, because the soils were very <br />permeable. <br /> <br />Mr. Black asked for clarification that the Board wanted a 4-foot separation. <br />Asleson responded that they wanted 4-foot between the bottom of the pond and <br />the high groundwater table. He added that the Board was very supportive of <br />using NURP ponds. <br /> <br />6 APPROVED MINUTES