My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/25/2004 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2004
>
02/25/2004 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2022 10:40:37 AM
Creation date
6/6/2014 10:39:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
02/25/2004
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.
/
10
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 FEBRUARY 25, 2004 <br />Smith inquired if the pond was raised. O’Dea stated she believed it was a <br />collector. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen questioned Ms. Penner if there would be any permanent residents. <br />Ms. Penner indicated they wanted to make it a residence for developmentally <br />disabled individuals. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen inquired about parking requirements for the residence. Asleson <br />answered that it would be based on its use. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen asked when construction would begin. Ms. Penner indicated the <br />church needed to know if it could be zoned for it. She noted that it could be <br />thought of as two developments. <br /> <br />Asleson inquired if the church would be running the residence. Ms. Penner <br />responded that it would be managed by a corporation of the denomination. <br /> <br />Chair Kukonen stated that he would like to have a field study done to make sure <br />there were no rare plant species. <br /> <br />Grundhofer asked if it needed to be done in June. Asleson stated that it could be <br />done earlier. <br /> <br />Ms. Penner stated that they were told that they needed to comply with the <br />recommendations of the Boards and be flexible on the position of the building. <br /> <br />Asleson expressed concern on the timing of the Northern and Southern phases of <br />the site. Ms. Penner answered the Northern section was required to go through <br />Metropolitan Council, and 2004 requests were filled. They were told by the City <br />to bring both phases in together. There was a possibility that one might be <br />approved while the other could be denied. <br /> <br />Grundhofer noted that funding would need to be procured for the residence. She <br />inquired if the homes would help fund the residence. Ms. Penner responded that <br />they would be separate. The homes would help fund an expansion in the <br />sanctuary. <br /> <br />Smith referred to Attachment 6 about the meaning of the blue lines. He inquired <br />if the residents would be on the floodplain and would there be FEMA issues. <br />Asleson responded the interest of the Board was the hydrologic component. <br /> <br />Grundhofer referred to the first large attachment and concerned the upland <br />setbacks on Lot 9 and Lot 7. She asked if fill would be needed to bring them up <br />to street level. Asleson answered that there was a grading area, and they did not <br />want garages downhill. <br /> <br />3 APPROVED MINUTES
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.