12-11-2000 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting December 11, 2000 8. #2596 Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail— Citizen Petition for EAW— • Resolution No. 4578— Continued environmental effects, then Council shall require an EAW. If evidence provided by petitioners, proposers and others failed to demonstrate to the Council that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, then Council shall deny the petition. Staff found that the Brenshell project did not fall within any of the Mandatory EAW categories under Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 because none of the thresholds are exceeded or even approached. Two exemption categories under Minnesota Rules 4410.4600 were potentially applicable to Brenshell Homes: 1) Subp. 2(B): Projects for which all governmental decisions have been made. MCWD has withheld their final effective approval until after the EAW need determination has been made. 2) Subp. 12: Construction of a residential development of less than 20 units in a Fourth Class City (Orono) is exempt, except when part of the project is within a shoreland area. Approximately 80% of the Brenshell site is within the designated Shoreland area. Gaffron stated that the staff memo addresses each concern raised in the petition: erosion and increased pollution to Forest Lake, filling in of the wetland, irreversible damage to • the last remaining area of Big Woods, and a hazardous intersection proposed to gain access to the development. Staff also considered 3 letters from individual residents when determining whether an EAW was necessary. Staff concluded that under the conditions of preliminary plat approval, which was granted earlier this fall, with certain refinements proposed in the staff memo, they felt it was appropriate and reasonable to find that the development has no significant environmental effects. Gary Welsh, of 1214 Wildhurst Trail, stated that the petitioners are not obstructionist and are prepared for development. They do want the EAW and may even contribute toward its expense. They would also accept the results of the EAW as final. Jack Perry, attorney with Briggs and Morgan at 2400 IDS Center, stated that he was asked to review the EAW and help the petitioners to understand the process and the resulting report. He cited Gaffron as stating the rules are unclear whether a public hearing is required. Mayor Jabbour stated that Gaffron said the hearing is not required. Mr. Perry insisted that Gaffron stated there is no mention of a public hearing being required anywhere in the relevant literature. He argued that a public hearing, even if not required, should be held out of fairness to the petitioners. He asked that the petitioners be given time to have their experts review the staff report and respond to it. - Kathleen Kasprick, of 1067 Linden Lane, stated that the citizens have acted with good will toward the Council and the developer. She felt the EAW would be good for the •