My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/28/2000 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2000
>
10/28/2000 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2016 11:55:28 AM
Creation date
6/5/2014 4:15:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
10/28/2000
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.
/
10
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 MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 <br />characteristics are present on this site. Asleson explained this site is half in MUSA and <br />half out of MUSA and there have been two sketch plans to date. He stated it appears the <br />DNR wants to take a different approach on how they look at developments, resources, <br />and conservation development so, perhaps, this can be used as a model project. <br />Vice Chair Davidson asked if this is a viable greenway corridor area. Asleson stated he <br />believes it is although it may not follow the same alignment indicated on the map. Also, <br />it would create the desired buffers. <br />Ross Fairbrother, representing the applicant, presented the revised site plan which depicts <br />small lot development rather than extending the property lines into the wetland areas. He <br />stated this smaller compact lot design promotes conservation development. Mr. <br />Fairbrother noted this plan works around the existing wetlands and tree stands to strike a <br />balance between what is appropriate to develop and what is reasonable to conserve. He <br />stated they have maintained a maximum avoidance of the wetlands. <br />Mr. Fairbrother presented a plan identifying wetlands, uplands, and areas to be developed <br />for housing, noting the acreage and percentages of areas to be developed and those to be <br />conserved. He noted the smaller lots increase the area of conservation. He pointed out <br />areas of viewsheds, potential trail alignment, and access points. Mr. Fairbrother <br />addressed their intent to soften the hard surface areas and stated all areas not platted for <br />housing would be deeded for a conservation easement. <br />Vice Chair Davidson asked how wide the roads would be. Mr. Fairbrother stated the road <br />width is negotiable, depending; on what the City wants. <br />Mach stated this plan is well thought put but he has found upland, which provides <br />habituate, suffers with these projects: He stated if a conservation easement program is to <br />be continued, diversity of habituate types needs to be considered to assure a diversity of <br />wildlife is present. <br />Asleson explained the: blue areas depicted on the map do not identify areas of open water. <br />Mach stated he would be willing to see some trees removed if it would save some upland <br />and provide diverse nesting habitat and animals. Asleson stated the GIS data for this site <br />would be useful in identifying the upland and wetland elevations. <br />Asleson asked about the number of lots and how it relates to the project. Mr. Fairbrother <br />stated it would be a more appropriate to ask John Hill to address whether it is <br />economically feasible. <br />Ken Adolph, representing the applicant, explained that John Hill was unable to attend the <br />meeting tonight. He stated they feel that 64 lots are needed to make this project <br />financially feasible and if the lot number were to be reduced, they may return with a <br />request for higher density, such as townhomes. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.