02/28/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 recommendations, the Board concurred with staff in promoting native vegetation, along with the standard recommendations. Mr. Dalbee, Project Designer for Ryan Companies US, Inc., indicated that an environmental architect had been hired. Donlin complimented the use of premium cut off lamps because it was a good choice to reduce glare, and suggested to staff that the information about these lamps be given to Target. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board approved the project. D. VFW Post 6583 /Apollo Drive (Item 1 -04) — Asleson read the background sheet. The VFW wishes to sell 1.5 acres and have the area surveyed. Staff recommends that the elderberries on the bank's property be extended to Lake Drive, and that the Board should approve the request to sell and survey the VFW land. He asked for comments. O'Connell asked for a clarification who the buyers would be Asleson answered a dental group, and that it was zoned commercial. Donlin inquired about the access road. Asleson indicated it would be on the regional road Apollo Drive. Chair Lanyon questioned if the property had any relevance to the greenway. Asleson answered the woodland in tee eastern part was threatened. No additional recomtn unanimously. nom the Board were stated. The project was approved E. 12th and Holly Drive /Subdivision Application Review (Item 1 -05) — The background for agenda Item 1 -05 was read by Asleson. The area on the northern side had been impacted, and shows no evidence of rare or unique species. Staff visited the site and made recommendations. Asleson asked for any new recommendations. Grundhofer suggested shortening the road and removing Lot 5. Donlin stated that with the possibility of rich fen on the site, there should be no grading. In the past, the area was a wetland, a bog type landscape, and quite wet. Asleson noted that he went to look at the site, it had been heavily impacted, and ditched in the west. Chair Lanyon asked what recourse the Board had to respond to the delineation of the project plan, and if there was disagreement, could it be recommended that the report be repeated.