My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/28/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
03/28/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2016 12:08:47 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 4:22:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
03/28/2001
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 MARCH 28, 2001 <br />Trehus indicated the total area was 40.5 acres except for the area in the southwest <br />which had been set aside for future development, and would create an outlot of <br />77,000 sq. ft. Mr. Goertz explained this was a minor subdivision off of the area <br />for a store and would be kept at 2.32 /acre density. <br />Trehus stated that the total area of the parcel to be developed was 34.4 acres. Mr. <br />Goertz pointed out 80 units on about 30 acres, and explained in the past they had <br />never subtracted the wetland areas. He assured that with the present spacing, the <br />site would remain low density. <br />Kukonen submitted it was encouraging to see the plans for the open space, and <br />asked about the staff recommendation for signage. <br />Trehus indicated there was no preservation in the plans, and that the area was <br />currently zoned R-1. Asleson responded the buffer would have infiltration ponds, <br />and that there was a considerable amount of upland. <br />Trehus noted a 200 -ft. buffer was recommended for wetland. Mr. Goertz <br />explained the 30 -ft. setback left 60 ft. for the owners to work with before the <br />conservation easement. The houses would be located at least 150 ft. Mfrom the <br />open water. He stated that he could get an exemption Uor he ditch and`wetland. <br />If they were single family homes they would have 80,footlots with 10,000 sq. ft. <br />Chair Lanyon stated Mr. Goertz had responded,to theBoard's recommendations, <br />and that he was comfortable with the changes.`}"" rY <br />5;3, <br />Donlin indicated that in the project review the'' °1=`00 ,year flood level was a 2 -foot <br />difference, not a 3 -foot difference. ,;1Vir Goertz explained the watershed district <br />deals with those numbers. <br />t, <br />. <br />j7r 4. <br />Donlin identified less than 200 sq fill,i1 net on the floodplain. Mr. Goertz <br />indicated his workers dug-holestan the area, and only encountered old tires. <br />} r .r. <br />Donlin explained that the languagemade the Environmental Board skeptical <br />because other develop ers"had misled it. She then asked about the purpose of the <br />weir. <br />Mr. Goertz answered that it skims sediment out of the water runoff Asleson <br />added infiltration;ponds also had weirs. <br />vti5 ry,' <br />Chair Lanyon ystated there was only half the allotted time to discuss the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />if <br />Donlin indicated in addition to staff recommendations, buffering should be <br />addressed, and the area should be inventoried for potential rare and endangered <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.