My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/18/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
07/18/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2016 11:58:54 AM
Creation date
6/5/2014 4:27:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
07/18/2001
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.
/
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 JULY 18, 2001 <br />Chair Lanyon asked if the City Council approved the resolution, was it still contingent on <br />approval by the Watershed District, and could the District call for an Environmental Impact <br />Statement. Grochala stated the RGU (meaning the City Council) would make the -final <br />decision, with a probable yes or no addressing potential impacts. <br />Chair Lanyon explained the Board had concerns that the Council was deferring to the <br />Watershed District on certain issues. Grochala indicated the City would base its approval <br />on how the issues were addressed. <br />Chair Lanyon questioned if the Environmental Impact Statements were for large projects <br />only, and not usually done on smaller projects. Grochala answered they often take about a <br />year to complete, but the City did not want to miss anything. If Rice Creek and other <br />agencies with their standards were not a part of the process, more studies would be <br />required. <br />Grundhofer asked if there were permit requirements to be met, specifically on p. 2 of the <br />Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments regarding what standards of infiltrations <br />were used for stormwater. <br />Asleson stated that in terms of amounts, the Watershed District had extended'the standards <br />as much as possible, however with regard to design, there were many models' 'that could <br />apply. <br />3y1aj 3n <br />Grundhofer inquired if they decided on a model. Asleson responded,5that a design was <br />being considered for Spirit Hills, and a similar one would applyaere. <br />Grochala stated requirements could be made as conditions for approval. The islands in the <br />parking lot for vegetation were being plannedor„-infiltration areas, however, the planned <br />grading needed to be inquired about. Asleson indicated the quantity would be answered, <br />but the quality would need to be maintaind. <br />Grochala commented on issues outside regulatory control which would be written up in an <br />operation and maintenance nreei iptif arid:;discuss how the costs would be split. He <br />indicated that best management practices would be recommended to reduce phosphorus <br />loading. Asleson noted the Watershed District may require them. <br />Kukonen questioned ifthe green islands would be basins with curbs around them. Asleson <br />pointed out the islands at City Hall were supposed to be basins. <br />Grochala explained`rthat=there was a risk of backing up in the spring. Maplewood had <br />basins, which f lledfp with runoff debris. Asleson commented that in the spring or times <br />of rainfall, there was little puddling. <br />Chair Lanyon referred to p. 2, top of p. 6, and p. 8 the fourth paragraph, where the City's <br />response indicates that 29 acres or less would not significantly affect the wetlands. <br />Grochala added there was a similar comment on p. 6 response #4, "the loss of significant <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.