Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 <br />Kukonen inquired if the runoff problem present on the old plan was no longer an issue on <br />the redesigned plat. Mr. Cooper stated the configuration was redesigned because of the <br />wetland being nonexistent where one was thought to be, and the presence of a new <br />wetland, with the new plan there was zero impact on the wetland. The present plan was <br />in compliance with subdivision ordinances, and no variances would be sought. <br />Asleson noted in terms of groundwater elevations, the FHA states the bottom of the <br />houses had to be at least 4 feet, but the City zoning says 6 feet. <br />Donlin submitted the development was against the vision of the City, with its cookie <br />cutter plan, and speculations concerning the water levels and flood stages. Schmidt <br />disagreed that the water levels and flood stages were based on conjecture, indicating the <br />groundwater was measured at seven locations on site, and the elevations would <br />correspond to those numbers. <br />Asleson stated more trees could be lost if the soil was compacted. Mr. Schmidt indicated <br />there was a cash escrow for the trees requiring 4 hardwoods per lot, and that he would be <br />willing to try to save the Pin Oak. The spade to be used has a diam eter:of 90 inches. So <br />far, 40 Norway Pines have already been planted on site. <br />O'Connell indicated she had visited another development at Noble tojd 97th Avenue N. <br />and asked the name of the development. Mr. Schmidt explained the name was St. <br />Gerard's, where 500 trees were moved, and they lost120 trees mostly: to wind damage. <br />Asleson expressed concern over the clearcutting, and itndicatec other areas developed <br />without clearcutting were Park Grove, parts o f Pheasant�Hills, and Clearwater Creek. He <br />asked to be shown on the map where treesVere not to e removed. Mr. Cooper pointed <br />out two areas. <br />O'Connell stated she observed nand rr <br />inquired if those trees were considered save <br />set aside, with no traffic. ,:x a <br />parked over many small trees, and <br />Mr. Schmidt responded the area would be <br />Mach asked what werethe expenses incurred by the developer that would make it better <br />to grade the land than I to ii <br />rk around the trees. <br />Mr. Schmidt inch ated the loss of lots was the issue, because the number of lots makes a <br />development economically feasible. <br />Chair Lanyon' Poi, ed out the Southwest cul -de -sac on the plat tree map had about 7 trees <br />not located the pad would be, and asked why those had to be removed. Mr. <br />Cooper answered it was a drainage issue, where the water would be trapped and would <br />not flow. <br />5 <br />