My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/10/2003 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2003
>
09/10/2003 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2022 10:40:25 AM
Creation date
6/6/2014 9:40:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
09/10/2003
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.
/
9
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 MEETINGSEPTEMBER 10, 2003 <br />2APPROVED MINUTES <br />A.EAW Comment Review, Marshan Lake Industrial Park <br />Mr. Moberg was present for responding to comments. Responses from the 30- <br />day comment period were received from MNDOT, Metropolitan Council, the <br />Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. <br />The letter from the Department of Natural Resources had Tetratech do a walk <br />through of the area for the presence of potential rare plants and found none. The <br />MN Historical Society had been consulted to study the area and found it did not <br />meet the National Register criteria. SHPO agreed with their findings. He had <br />contacted Anoka County that indicated they were comfortable, if the issues raised <br />by other agencies were addressed. He also left a message with Rice Creek <br />Watershed District, with no response. The applicant had already submitted <br />applications and could receive comment formally. <br />Grochala stated that in August the Council gave conditional approval of the plat. <br />Asleson indicated a lot was located on the South side of the easement. <br />Grochala noted from the standpoint of Rice Creek Watershed District, they would <br />like to work with Rehbein’s NETLAWN. The engineering comments had been <br />received, and there would probably be no further problems. Donlin added, or no <br />staff to adequately review the document. <br />Mr. Moberg stated that it was the responsibility of the Regulating Government <br />Unit to send out copies, they had received the usual responses. There were three <br />modes of notification being the EQB Monitor, direct mailings, and to publish a <br />notice in the local newspaper. <br />O’Dea inquired if it was common to not receive a response, which was echoed by <br />Donlin. <br />Mr. Moberg stated there was a meeting, and the concerned agencies had <br />responded to the platting. Grochala indicated that they had responded to the full <br />plat plan. <br />Donlin expressed concern for the County Ditch 10. Asleson stated that it was <br />almost a creek. <br />Grochala stated there would be a 50-foot easement on both sides. A fire lane was <br />required around the Panettoni site, that would be paved with NETLAWN. <br />Asleson indicated the product would be ideal for that purpose. <br />Grochala noted the private ditch would be gone. Mr. Moberg mentioned it might <br />have functioned to bring water to Ditch 10.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.