My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/21/2004 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2004
>
01/21/2004 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2022 10:40:37 AM
Creation date
6/6/2014 10:38:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
01/21/2004
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.
/
8
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 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 <br />Mr. Moberg added that the elevation change from the lake to the development <br />was at an incline that provided a natural barrier for turtles. He continued with the <br />review stating that there was only limited ability to put in underground storm <br />sewers and raingardens. In response to the second recommendation of putting in <br />parking islands, the majority were too small to aid in infiltration. The third <br />recommendation was to consult with the Mn/DNR for an NRI/Assessment. <br /> <br />Grochala indicated the City needed to address the issues in the EAW and <br />conceptually finalize the plan with a conservation easement with limited clear <br />cutting of the underbrush. The City had considerable leverage at this point on the <br />site. Mr. Moberg indicated that Anoka County wanted to put in a trail through the <br />site. <br /> <br />Grochala stated a 50-foot buffer around the original buffer was written into the <br />sale. <br /> <br />Mr. Moberg continued the Metropolitan Council review. The fourth concern was <br />that the separation be maintained. The City had maintained the separation. The <br />fifth was that they wanted to see a traffic simulation model. The City was in <br />process with developing a traffic simulation model and would be submitting it <br />when available. The sixth concern was for locating bus stops to possibly expand <br />the bus service when the site became fully developed. <br /> <br />O’Dea inquired if there were any mass transit considerations in the simulation <br />model. Mr. Moberg responded that there were not at this time because of the <br />congestion on the ramps and bridge. <br /> <br />O’Connell stated her impression was that the bus service was considered adequate <br />according to the Metropolitan Council. Grochala answered that there would be <br />added congestion if the route was expanded. <br /> <br />Mr. Moberg referred to the Anoka County comments. He indicated that they had <br />a disagreement on the traffic volumes at the present time. The City’s response <br />was to direct them to the 2002 traffic flow maps. Grochala added that there was a <br />lot of traffic and without other agencies addressing the issue, the City planned to <br />deal with the issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Moberg clarified that the County wanted to know how fast the traffic <br />volumes would grow. The second concern was access needed to be controlled. <br />Amoco would reduce their accesses to one entrance onto Lake Drive. <br /> <br />Asleson inquired if the one access would eliminate the Amoco semi truck <br />customers. Grochala answered that it would change to a lighted four-way access. <br />It would be an improvement because it would guarantee safe entrance to Lake <br />Drive. <br /> <br /> 3 APPROVED MINUTES
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.