My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/30/2003 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2003
>
07/30/2003 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2022 10:40:25 AM
Creation date
6/6/2014 9:39:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
07/30/2003
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.
/
14
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 MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 <br />4 APPROVED MINUTES <br />Asleson stated the numbers needed to be verified. <br />Mr. Skarphol recalled the total impervious allowed was 75%. Asleson stated he <br />was probably over the maximum. <br />Mr. Skarphol assured the Board he would verify the numbers were within the <br />requirements. <br />Grundhofer made a motion to recommended approval with the following <br />recommendations: <br />• Address the surface water movement. <br />• Work with City staff on vegetation and buffering, including more oak. <br />• Reduce the parking stalls to the City limit and include pervious parking. <br />• Verify the pervious and impervious percentages. <br />• Ensure adherence to lighting standard. <br />• Inquire about oil recycling possibilities for the public. <br />• Add Tree Preservation Plan to the Grading Plan. <br />O’Dea seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />B.EAW Review, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12 <br />Asleson stated that buffering and surface treatment were recommendations <br />regardless of the position of the Board on the plan. The charge was to ensure the <br />worksheet was complete and accurate to be passed on to Council. The City <br />needed to have it available to the public. After the Council’s approval, it would <br />go to various agencies for the 30-day comment period. <br />Jeff Melby, a resident at 6685 Ruffed Grouse Road, stated the City was the RGU, <br />and then it would go to the Environmental Quality Board. When reviewed there, <br />it might be seen as an endorsement by the City. <br />Asleson stated the questions needed to be addressed, and added that significant <br />suggestions had already been made. <br />Sandy Seebold, a resident at 6668 Ruffed Grouse Road, requested the EAW. She <br />expressed the need for the neighbors to have a chance to comment on the impact <br />the development would have on their neighborhood. <br />Asleson stated that typically a news release would occur. <br />Ms. Seebold reiterated that because it would greatly impact their lives, they need <br />to be able to review the plan. Asleson responded that the Board’s Review tonight
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.