10/26/2005 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 12, 2005 would be addressing the transportation issues on October 24, 2005. Staff did not believe it would be approved at that meeting, but would probably be tabled. Parts of County Road 21 would need to be upgraded. Rehbein was part of the team and they were planning to use innovative techniques to address the issues. Council had expressed concern over the number and type of housing units. The City wanted to integrate the high density. The developers wanted to create pocket parks. O'Connell stated that Heritage Ponds in Hugo had curb appeal. Grochala noted that they wanted to maximize the aesthetic design components. Market demands had changed, and they wanted to create a neighborhood mix with walkability to the commercial from the residential areas. B. Rice Creek Professional Building Grochala stated the building met the Shoreland District impervious requirement. There was little discretion for permitted uses, and so the plan went through the staff review and not the boards and Council. The process began in April, with permits in July. He indicated Asleson had expressed concern on infiltration issues on the site, but Rice Creek Watershed District was the permitting body for it, and had addressed many of the issues. The height requirement was met, and was under 35 feet. Chair O'Dea inquired since the Board did not make decisions, what would the harm be to obtain input from the Board. Grochala responded with the question, if the Board made recommendations that were not followed, what would be the perception. O'Connell referred to the Dairy Queen example with the lighting issue. O'Dea added that the people on the Board bring unique views. Perhaps similar sites could be brought to the Board as a discussion item, but not an action item. Asleson stated that there were some things he could miss in a staff review. Chair O'Dea asked for clarification that there were garages located underneath the building. With tuck -under garages, there were often issues of plowing and the resulting runoff. Grochala answered that the ponding areas were located between the building and the lake. Kukonen stated that the ponds might be too close to the lake. Grochala noted the site was about 6 acres of upland with about 30,000 square feet • buildable land. They were going to bury the above ground utilities. 5 DRAFT MINUTES