My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/28/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
11/28/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2016 5:06:06 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 4:32:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/2001
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.
/
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 NOVEMBER 28, 2001 <br />6. DISCUSSION ITEMS <br />A. Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition — This item was discussed later in the meeting. <br />B. Surface Water Management Plan Discussion — Powell distributed and referred <br />to the Infiltration Checklist from the Rice Creek Watershed District, and a memo <br />from Richard Thompson. He stated that they were in the process of assembling <br />information so that they did not have to refer to the project files later. The <br />Infiltration Checklist is distributed to developers to be com ed and address all <br />points on the checklist. Any inconsistencies between the chec071nd present City <br />policy must be reconciled. There were times that the Water&irflii <br />requirement, but but the City removed it. He noted an examplek*that wts- othe <br />,.,.;',0'.I.4.=, <br />Watershed District required raised islands in a cul-de-sacwnt <br />-......4, 'qty needed <br />the streets to accommodate emergency vehicles. Po '. d fhttboth the needs <br />of the Watershed and the City could be met with sm and lower plants. <br />Trehus inquired if the items were binding, or were-the--tVtibpers required to <br />address the issues. Powell answered that the lo were required to address <br />--,--,,, ,. _. <br />each issue, and continued with the examplc' thetAiWi,onted 28 -foot street widths, <br />while the Watershed wanted 26 -foot • ere Were no sidewalks in the City, <br />only trails, however the Village could erawhere sidewalks might be <br />desired. <br />Trehus posed the question if a <br />that a trail was not a sidew <br />change in right-of-way fo <br />as considered a sidewalk. Powell responded <br />pnsider sidewalks would be a dramatic <br />.•-top <br />IlLir <br />Powell continued to revitioIhe Chcckhst. The issues of parking stalls and shared <br />parking were consi ill e City and Watershed District Staff noted that <br />car t., <br />businesses were g oge4to overflow parking, shared parking and <br />parking waivers'!3-1 he Cily rcquired natural vegetation as stated in the Act; <br />howeverr covenantIt required as in the Watershed District. <br />xur <br />Donlin <br />uL thc needs for fire, snow removal and storage. Powell <br />.4-.-- <br />answere d Ttt. .e issue could be resolved with a raised island. However, residents <br />usually we-vtoncemed about the need to see children playing in the street, but he <br />assured the Bard that it was not insurmountable with low plants. If snow would <br />be piled on the islands the plants would be crushed. <br />Powell identified in the area of vegetated swales, and noted that education was the <br />biggest obstacle. In the past the City did not allow swales, and developers wanted <br />a catch basin. The major issue was the prevention of compaction, so either the <br />developer could not compact the soil, or must loosen the soil if compaction <br />occurred. The need for imported soils presents another concern because the <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.