2006.03.23 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes — March 23, 2006 Page 2 be necessary. There would be no impact to the floodway and impacts to the wetlands would be for roads to be constructed as part of the development. The developer would need to work with the City and other agencies to minimize those impacts. Additional turn lanes on Highway 61 into the development at the proposed 157th Street entrance would be necessary, and a traffic signal and turn lanes at Highway 61 and 147' Street would need to be installed as part of the development. Permits from MN DOT for access to Highway 61 would be necessary and proper spacing between intersections and signals would need to be considered with the potential for a signal at 165th Street. MN DOT was agreeable to an interim intersection for the development, but if a median was constructed in the future, it would be a right -in and right -out. Washington County is the Rail Authority so access points on the east side of Highway 61 could impact what happens on the west side. Proposed roundabouts would need further analysis. Adequate water would be available to the project and sewer would be available for the south half of the development through the existing sewer system, and a new extension for the north would extend along 165th street to the Forest Lake Interceptor on the west side of Highway 61. This would require a MUSA expansion and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which would need to be approved by the Met Council. Other items addressed were potential contamination by the recycling company on the western portion of the site; archeological resources, none of which were found; water surface use, which would include a dock on Oneka Lake; noise, the development would not generate noise or exceed state noise levels; and trails, which were proposed for the development. If it was determined an EIS was not necessary, the project would move forward to the platting phase. Schumann asked if any of the WSB Consultants or Commission Members had any comments. They did not and Schumann opened the public hearing. Craig Baland, 15475 Goodview Trail North, asked how the habitat behind him, southern portion of the proposed development, would be affected by the removal of the trees. A trail through the woods connecting to the City owned park would be preferable. Elizabeth Herrmann, 6189 165th Street North, questioned the notification period since the notice she received was postmarked March 8, she received it on March 10, and the 30 day comment period ended March 29. The CDD explained the 30 -day comment period was a requirement by the EQB. City ordinance required a 10 -day notice prior to public hearings and most municipalities do not require public hearings on EAW. Herman commented on the traffic and proposed they consider 1701h Street to be the main intersection. She said holding ponds would be inadequate; the area was already wet during a typical spring. Removing the trees would adversely affect the wetlands, turtles would be displaced and habitat would be disrupted. There was excessive paving, and landscaping would add chemicals to the lake. Those with recently updated wells in the area would not necessarily want MUSA. Bob Harms, 6541 170th Street, asked about water drainage and if a water assessment would be done for property owners to the north of the development. He did not want to see additional water on his property. He said there was an imbalance of the elevation of the proposed homes to the elevation of his home. Phil Belfiori, WSB Consultant, said the area had been improved through a recent City project that lowered the regulatory floodplain by one and one-half feet to remove some of the homes from the