My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/29/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
08/29/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2016 11:58:09 AM
Creation date
6/5/2014 4:28:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
08/29/2001
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.
/
11
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 AUGUST 29, 2001 <br />Page 7, fifth paragraph: "The Board seemed to say that they wanted the developers to <br />meet insufficient standards." <br />Trehus moved to approve the July 18, 2001 meeting minutes as amended above. <br />O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />APPROVAL OF AGENDA <br />The following item was added to the meeting agenda: <br />• Discuss 5E the MarketPlace Update as a part of 5A the Ryan Taretp <br />U dxate. <br />g <br />The agenda was approved as amended above. <br />CITIZEN COMMENTS <br />Donlin indicated that two residents had called her by phonOtatmg'thej cTesire to comment on <br />Board Business, but had scheduling conflicts and may be late <br />PROJECT REVIEW <br />A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store/Update- Gro4chala stated that throughout the life of <br />the project there had been dramatic change,{however the Council denied the project with <br />two abstaining. Wetland mitigation had been a discussion item. There had been two <br />meetings concerning the reduction of pending and increasing the infiltration basins. The <br />landscaping plan indicated 788 trees would_be moved. New improvements would have <br />been necessary to Lake Drive, m additionqothe subsidy issue. <br />Chair Lanyon inquired about the Watershed District's response. Grochala responded that <br />the technology panel did not concern itself with the volume issue, but with rate control. <br />They were seeking to{r.,ednee. the infiltration areas and keep the ponding area. <br />Chair Lanyon_ posed the question if it became a project again, what would be the role of <br />the Environmental Board ` Grochala answered that the Environmental Assessment <br />Worksheet was still :i the approval process. <br />Donlin stated previously Asleson lead several Environmental Board members to the site, <br />which she revisited recently and noted the biodiversity, such as mature oaks, black <br />cherries, pheasants, and tamaracks. She added that there was considerable neighborhood <br />opposition to the project. She visited the SuperTarget at Lexington and Highway 694, <br />and described it as a vast asphalt expanse. She noted some small saplings, the infiltration <br />pond was fenced off because it was deep, and had garbage in it. <br />Chair Lanyon stated that the Board tried to move the project toward an ecological <br />balance. He indicated the Board was not displeased that the project was stopped. Donlin <br />explained that the outcome represented the 20/20 vision, with a prairie -rural flavor to the <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.