CC 09-11-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I Ie I .AJll)EN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMaER 11, 1995 2 MOTION: Malone moved and Hicks seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried lm,m;mously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Doris Canniff, 3946 Glenview, expressed concern about City spending, she felt the City was spending money unwisely. Ms. Canniff suggested any expenditure over $5,000 should be voted upon by the residents. Ms. Canniff indicated it was aggravating to the citizens to see spending on such items as park improvements. Mayor Probst extended an invitation for further public comment, hearing none, he moved on to the next item of business. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS Ol!l"en EA W Community Development Director Ringwald briefly reviewed the staff report in regard to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet ordered by the City Council for the Ogren development. Mr. Ringwald indicated the 30 day public comment period for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) closed on August 30, 1995. Therefore the City Council is being requested to either; decide on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or postpone a decision for up to 30 days to gather information which is critical to the decision on the need for an EIS. Mr. Ringwald explained the EA W is a brief document prepared in a worksheet format which is designed to mpidly assess the environmental effects which may be associated with a proposed project. The criteria for determining significant environmental effect are found in Minnesota Rule Chapter 4410.1700, Subpart 7, which states: "In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered: A. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects; B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. The extent to which the environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or ofEIS's previously prepared on similar projects.