My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/31/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
01/31/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2016 1:25:26 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 4:20:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
01/31/2001
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.
/
13
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 JANUARY 31, 2001 <br />Donlin indicated there is bias when a company hires another company to report findings. <br />Asleson continued that it had been impacted. <br />Chair Lanyon mentioned that there was a difference between the wetland delineation of <br />20 years ago and that of today in the vegetation. <br />Mach pointed out that there was no plan for restoration, and submitted the possibility the <br />Board not approve. Donlin agreed in light of the ditches and the past projects the <br />company has worked on, they have not fulfilled the obligations of those projects. <br />Chair Lanyon explained that the Board was concerned about those previously unfulfilled <br />obligations. <br />Mach indicated that the goal should be to raise the environmental quality of the parcel, <br />which would ultimately increase the value. <br />Chair Lanyon advised the applicable information should be reissued, because even if the <br />area was degraded, it may not take much to restore the area to increase its value. <br />Asleson identified the parcel was the same size as Peregrine Pass at 80 acre's, where the <br />streets were narrowed, retention ponds added. With no conservation `ordinance on the <br />books, there seems to be no way to implement the same procedure with 12th and Holly. <br />t.. <br />Trehus noted the plat map had been modified, and Smyser's report stated concerns over <br />multiple driveways that connect to 12th Streetorfolly,,Dr��ive. He explained that there <br />4 n5 <br />should be no driveways on arterial roads, :because traffie�congestion was an <br />environmental issue. <br />Chair Lanyon submitted that other groups would follow this example, Lots 1 and 8 with a <br />driveway going onto 12th Street should beremoved to retain open space. <br />Donlin stated that Smyser'again {supports it with the statement, "When 5 to 7 of the 14 <br />lots don't meet the standards..." <br />Grundhofer reviewed the recommendations to reduce the number of lots, which were not <br />attempted, but Merely changed the street position. The present proposal threatens the <br />potential fen site. Sle;then asked if the person in the existing house was developing the <br />property. <br />Chair Lanyon stated that the proposal was a step backwards in terms of efforts promoting <br />green developments. <br />E. Apitz/Birch/Hodgeson (Item 1-06) — Mr. Goertz stated that the area in the west was in <br />the greenway corridor so the configurations had been changed, although the same maps <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.