CCP 09-25-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11. 1995 , .1 J I Mr. Ringwald noted the City is required, within five days of making its decision on the adequacy of the EA W, to notifY all persons on the EA W distribution list, all persons who provided written I comments during the 30 day public comment period, and to any other person upon written request. Mr. Ringwald indicated staff concludes that the development proposal, as modified by its I recommendations is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and City Code. Mr. Ringwald indicated staff concludes, and the developer has agreed to the following: a) that the I development proposal should comply with the intent of the City Shoreland Management and Floodplain regulations, even though the development project is not located in the shoreland area or I in a floodplain; b) to comply with certain tree and vegetation preservation measures, even though the City has no tree protection ordinance; c) to provide a buffer adjacent to the wetlands which will be protected by a conservation easement; d) to receive approval of and comply with the required I permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. He noted the development proposal has received the necessary nationwide permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. I Mr. Ringwald pointed out the project in this development proposal is a one-time effect. In general, the construction of residential units is considered to be a non-reversible effect. Given that, the rules -I and regulations which govern residential construction are geared towards prevention and mitigation of those effects during the design and approval process, rather than reversing them through time. Mr. Ringwald noted there are currently no anticipated future development projects which are I associated to this development proposal. The previously described prevention and mitigation, measures have been established to minimize the long term or cumulative effects of this 16 unit I residential project. Mr. Ringwald reported the ongoing public regulatory authority over the project is limited to those I agencies who the developer is required to receive approval from prior to commencement of the project. The approval of and compliance with the permit requirements of these agencies will be a I condition of the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Ringwald explained t~,~ 16 unit residential project in this development proposal is subject to a I myriad of ongoing public regulations which have been designed to mitigate the environmental effects of these types of projects. He noted the proposed conditions of approval for this PUD, as recommended by staff and agreed to by the developer, would prohibit future modification to this I development proposal without further public input and City Council approval. Mr. Ringwald reported the rules and regulations which apply to this development are based on well I established practices by the reviewing agencies to prevent and mitigate the anticipated effects of the ~ development activity. . I I