Laserfiche WebLink
be on site mitigation, then off site mitigation. He then asked about the options they were considering. <br />Wessel responded the County Board was discussing the options, but nothing was decided. <br />Trehus asked for information concerning mitigation on existing park land. <br />Chair Lanyon agreed that they needed to clarify that option. <br />April 25 Project Continued <br />1 New site plan and application submitted. <br />1 No new EAW information <br />1 No new watershed information ie.wetland mitigation plan, surface water <br />plan <br />No petition for public improvements submitted yet. <br />STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: <br />1 Surface Water issue is still a very critical issue. Proposal shows a <br />wet pond on the North side. There is no information at this time <br />whether sequencing criteria will be met for proposed project, wetland <br />mitigation, surface water management planning will be met. <br />1 Have requested the developer investigate vegetated depressional areas <br />through the parking lots. <br />1 Grading on the project should direct water to infiltration areas <br />• Have made a sugestion that the 6 foot walkway be changed to a vegetated <br />infiltration area. This should be tiled to allow for excess water to <br />pass on to the next sequential infiltration area <br />1 Lighting has not changed except for a change to less spill on the north <br />Environmental ISSUES: <br />1 See attached reports <br />ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments <br />made by the Environmental Board: <br />1 <br />17apxc &_Pe peazaov_BoapS Xin oq Alva Aaxs6 <br />