My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/05/2022 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2022
>
10/05/2022 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2023 12:37:28 PM
Creation date
3/16/2023 12:36:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
10/05/2022
Env Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Environmental Board <br />October 5, 2022 <br />Page 8 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Grochala added that a house built in 2003 would probably be meeting that separation <br />requirement as well. <br />David Ramsden, resident at 302 Carl Street, asked what soil model would be used, stating <br />that there are two levels there, which may have been impacted by the ditch that was put in. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan asked if this question or comment pertained to the responses to the EAW. <br /> <br />Mr. Ramsden responded that it was not. <br /> <br />Mr. Grochala provided some detail on how the water levels are modeled. <br /> <br />Scott Zbikowski, resident at 7765 Clydesdale Circle in Lino Lakes, stated that he was <br />disappointed in the Planning Commission and the developers for considering putting a <br />connection in Carl Street that would put that much additional traffic on this rural street. He <br />also stated that a larger traffic study should be done, noting the lack of pedestrian-friendly <br />features on surrounding roads. <br /> <br />Mr. Grochala noted that there is an extensive traffic analysis in the EAW that provides the <br />information needed to make a sound engineering decision. <br /> <br />Ms. Cavegn asked what information an EIS would provide that we don’t currently have. <br /> <br />Ms. Harwood clarified that if there was missing information that should have been provided <br />in the EAW or that won’t be provided during the normal development review process, that’s <br />when an EIS would be conducted. In this case, the staff recommendation is that the <br />information that we have and information that will be forthcoming during the review process <br />is adequate to make a decision regarding any potential environmental impacts. <br /> <br />Ms. Cavegn asked what steps would be taken to ensure that airborne particulate matter <br />would not be a concern for the surrounding area. She also asked what information the Phase <br />2 assessment would provide related to soil contamination. <br /> <br />Ms. Harwood responded that the PCA rules and standards on dust management and erosion <br />control and standards for residential soils would mitigate these concerns. She also explained <br />the practices that would be implemented during construction to mitigate these issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Holmes made a MOTION to recommend adoption of the Record of <br />Decision and a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for the Robinson <br />Sod Farm to be forwarded to the City Council. Motion was supported by Ms. <br />McNulty. Motion carried 6-0. <br /> <br /> <br />VII. ADJOURNMENT <br /> <br />Chair Sullivan asked for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Holmes made a motion to
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.