Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Deemer referred to Item ~5 of the findings of fact and stated <br />that the school district projections for the PUD for kindergarten through <br />7th grade are 90 children. <br /> <br />Chairman Peterson brought up the subject of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. <br />Such a report was done on Alpaca Estates because it was in .the critical rivers <br />area and EQB required it. <br /> <br />Mr. Carson requested preliminary approval of the PUD contingent upon the <br />Environmental Assessment Worksheet, if it is found to be required. <br /> <br />Mr. Dunn also pointed out that a State Disposal System Permit would be required <br />if the plans are to drain into the Rum River and this may require an Environmental <br />Assessement Worksheet. (Expansion of sewage collection systems in excess of <br />50,000 gallons/day would require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet). <br /> <br />Mr. Rick Foster stated that this project will not generate 50,000 gallons/day. <br /> <br />Commission consensus is to recommend that Council order an Environmental <br />Assessment Worksheet if it is determined by the City Engineer and City Attorney <br />to be required. <br /> <br />Mr. Carson stated that if the Environmental Worksheet is required, then it <br />should be stated so in the PUD ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Dunn pointed out that it is possible for a PUD to contain only 10~15 <br />homes, in which case an Environmental Assessment Worksheet w~uld not be <br />required. City Ordinances do not constantly repeat State and County rules. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg noted that the PUD ordinance does require that Planning and. Zoning <br />sut~nit a written statement to Council regarding their decision. <br /> <br />Commission consensus is that the minutes of this meeting will serve as P & Z's <br />written statement to Council. <br /> <br />Motion by Co~,~Lissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Kennen to recommend <br />preliminary approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development for Flintwood <br />Hills based on the facts discussed in these minutes, developer's exhibit <br />dated January 30, 1984 (restrictive covenance), City Engineer's Letter dated <br />February 3, 1984 and City Engineer's letter dated February 7, 1984. Further, <br />that a variance be granted to the open space requirement on the basis of <br />additional right-of-way received from the developer for the MSA street, prior <br />park dedication and contribution to City Public Works property. (Note: <br />The Commission is approving the plan viewed February 7, 1984 and referred to <br />as Flintwood Hills II Exhibit A of the agenda). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Deemer, Kennen, <br />Zimmerman and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Kennen to recommend <br />approval of the rezoning of the following described property to a Planned <br />Unit Development: <br /> <br />That part of the south half of the Southwest Quarter and of <br />Government Lot 3, Section 25, Township 32, Range 25, Anoka County, <br />Minnesota, lying easterly of the plat of Flintwood Hills and lying <br />westerly of the centerline of State Highway #47 as now laid out and <br />traveled. Except that part described as follows: <br /> <br />P & Z/February 7, 1984 <br /> Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />