Laserfiche WebLink
Principal City En~neer Olson noted that as part oS the Ponds case the same issue did come up <br />and the City hired ProSource Technology, who Mr. Raatikka did talk to, and they cam¢~o the' <br />determination than an EAW was not necessary. The developer did change the curbing in ,that <br />case to help provide better movement for the turtles. In this development all,,O~'ithe curNng <br />would be sloped. : ": :":: <br />Motion by Councilmember Kurak, seconded by Mayor Gamec, to adopt the preliminary plat <br />contingent on the following items: ,~ ,,:~: _~ <br /> <br />1. The City Council finding that an EAW is not necessary :or .warranted for the Villas <br /> Meadow Point subdivision after the City hires an independent consultant at the Developer's <br /> expense to review the citizen petition and provide gu/dance to the City Council. 'It is <br /> understood that nothing in the conditionaI approval of the preliminary plat will excuse the_- <br /> project proposer from making project changes or implementing mitigation measures that are <br /> warranted on the basis of information collected during the environmental review process. <br /> Further it is understood that the conditional approval will not 'be a factor in determining <br /> whether an EAW will be required for the project. Finally, the Conditional approval does not <br /> prevent the City or other governmental body from making a-determination that a feasible <br /> alternative or a no-build alternative is justified and the project as propOsed will not be <br /> <br />2. No final plat will be considered by the City council until a determ/nation on the citizen <br /> petition is made by the City. If an 'EAW is deemed necessary, no further approvals will be <br /> allowed in relation to the project nor any alteration .to'the site will be allowed until the City <br /> Council makes an EIS needs determination intmgard t6 the pr°Ject. If an EAW is required, <br /> the applicant shall resubmit to the City Councita revised prelSminary plat showing alterations <br /> and mitigation measures as required by theEAW. <br />3. The applicant complying with City sta~ review letter dated August 20, 2002, revised <br /> September 20, 2002, revised October 4, 20.02, revised October 18, 2002. <br />4.The appli cant receiving 'site plan approval 0'flthe:.{-Wo-unit townhomes. <br />5. Language being inserted in the DevelOpment Agreement that define the financial <br /> responsibilities between the City and the :developer regarding extension of sanitary sewer <br /> trUnk lines~which has been defir~d:as'a~ b, c, and d on pages 301 and 302 of this agenda. <br />6. The applicant complying with Anoka County Highway Department review totter dated <br /> October 21, 2002;._ <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Anderson stated that she was not sure that they will get any <br />more information from ProSoUrce Technologies than they have already received from Hakanson <br />Anderson. Mr. McGee stated that they have no problems with complying with the guidelines <br />recommended 'for The Ponds development. Councilmember Anderson stated that she was <br />questioning if they need another environmental opinion. City Attorney Goodrich stated that if <br />the Council feels they have received enough information regarding the petition they can adopt <br />the findings oCfact relatin~ to the issue. <br /> <br />Motion was withdrawn. <br /> <br />P150 <br /> <br />City Council/October 22, 2002 <br /> Page 30 of 35 <br /> <br />I <br />! <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />