Minutes - Council - 10/22/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ponds and the reduction of pasture and on-site systems. It was his opinion that the EAW is not warranted because the impacts are very minimal and actually some are positive for the area. Principal City Engineer Olson noted that-as part of the Ponds case, the same issue did come up and the City hired ProSource Technology, who Mr. Raatikka did talk to, and they came to the determination than an EAW was not necessary. The developer did change the curbing in that case to help provide better movement for the turtles. In this development all of the curbing would be sloped. Motion by Councilmember Kurak, seconded by Mayor Gamec, to adopt the preliminary plat contingent on the following items: 1. The City Council finding that an EAW is not necessary or warranted for the Villas of Meadow Point subdivision after the City hires an independent consultant at the Developer's expense to review the citizen petition and provide guidance to the City Council. It is understood that nothing in the conditional approval of the preliminary plat will excuse the project proposer from making project changes or implementing mitigation measures that are warranted on the basis of information collected during the environmental review process. Further it is understood that the conditional approval will not be a factor in determining whether an EAW will be required for the project. Finally, the conditional approval does not prevent the City or other governmental body from making a determination that a feasible alternative or a no-build alternative is justified and the project as proposed will not be approved. 2. No final plat will be considered by the City Council until a determination on the citizen petition is made by the City. If an EAW is deemed necessary, no further approvals will be allowed in relation to the project nor any alteration to the site will be allowed until the City Council makes an EIS needs determination in regard to the project. If an EAW is required, the applicant shall resubmit to the City Council a revised preliminary plat showing alterations and mitigation measures as required by the EAW. 3. The applicant complying with City staff review letter dated August 20, 2002, revised September 20, 2002, revised October 4, 2002,. revised October 18, 2002. 4. The applicant receiving site-plan approval of the two-unit townhomes. 5. Language being inserted in the Development Agreement that define the financial responsibilities between the City and the developer regarding extension of sanitary sewer trunk lines, which has been defined as a, b, c, and d on pages 301 and 302 of this agenda. 6. The applicant complying with Anoka County Highway Department review letter dated October 21, 2002. Further discussion: Councilmember Anderson stated that she was not sure that they will get any more information from ProSource Technologies than they have already received from Hakanson Anderson. Mr. McGee stated that they have no problems with complying with the guidelines recommended for The Ponds development. Councilmember Anderson stated that she was questioning if they need another environmental opinion. City Attorney Goodrich stated that if City Council/October 22, 2002 Page 32 of 37