CC 04-10-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I Ie I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AnTil 10. 1995 5 (I) The proposer of the project supplies data necessary for the completion of the EA W to the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). (2) The RGU prepareS the EA W. (3) Thirty (30) day public comment period. (4) The RGU responds to the comments received and makes a decision on the need for an EIS based on the EA W, comments received and the responses to the comments. The RGU and other units of government may require modifications to the project to mitigate environmental impacts as disclosed through the EA W process. Mr. Fritsinger continued to explain, an EA W is required for any project listed in the "mandatory EA W categories" of the EQB rules. He indicated it is staffs' position that this project does not necessarily fall under any of these categories and a mandatory EA W is not required and would fall under a discretionary EA W. Mr. Fritsinger indicated if the preparation of an EA W is neither mandatory nor exempted the City has the option to prepare an EA W. The City may elect this option if it finds that available evidence indicates that the project "may have the potential for significant environmental effects." Mr. Fritsinger indicated a letter had been received just prior to the meeting, from Mr. Ogren and his attorney regarding exemption. Mr. Fritsinger referred to Mr. John Miller, counsel for the City. Mr. Miller indicated he did not have enough time to review the letter fully, but it is obvious Mr, Ogren is requesting the City not to order an EA W. Mr, Fritsinger indicated ifhe understands correctly, the attorney is indicating the exemption portion of the regulations would apply as the development proposed is under 20 units is size and under the discretionary EA W, this exemption would apply. Mayor Probst inquired if the City could order an EA W based on the questions from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Miller stated this would indicate under the mandatory portion of the regulations there was a change in course or cross section of a one acre portion of a protected wetland. Mayor Probst inquired if it was true, as proposed, the drainage is in fact being reversed into Valentine Lake, a protected lake. Mr. Fritsinger indicated this appears to be correct, as site plans note a pond on the northeast comer of the site which will flow directly to Valentine Lake. Mr. Miller indicated if the City Council defines that finding, that argument should be included in any action. Mayor Probst expressed concern if an EA W is ordered, and perhaps the PUD denied, could the EA W still be effective if Mr. Ogren came back with modified plans. Mr. Miller believed it would be in effect if there was less impact on the site, but if the building density increased an additional EA W could possibly be requested.