My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/25/2000 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2000
>
10/25/2000 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2014 1:06:03 PM
Creation date
7/29/2014 1:24:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
10/25/2000
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.
/
44
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 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 <br />the proposed plat and would have to be addressed. Asleson reviewed the direction of the <br />drainage on the site <br />Chair Lanyon stated it appears the areas of concern are to mesh this project with the <br />greenway trail system and the habitats of interest and concern which need to be protected <br />during design and implementation of the project. <br />Asleson reviewed the types of soils expected to be contained within this site. <br />In response to Donlin, Ross Fairbrother stated they propose 66 housing units on the 17 <br />acres of upland, or 3 units per acre. He explained they are proposing a small lot <br />residential development with lots being 50 feet wide and 110 feet to 135 feet long, similar <br />to detached townhomes. <br />Mach stated it appears this proposal would use most of the upland area. Mr. Fairbrother <br />stated that is correct. <br />Chair Lanyon excused himself from the meeting at 8:0 .m. and asked Vice Chair <br />Davidson to chair the remainder of the meeting. <br />Trehus asked about the trees on the site and w <br />Fairbrother stated they would have a conservation <br />conservation easement is typically over th _ we <br />noted this plan is at a conceptual level. <br />e responsible for removal. Mr. <br />ment. Smyser stated a <br />d and open space areas. He <br />John Hill stated they looked at <br />for townhomes so they could <br />protect those areas outsid <br />those areas outside of t <br />n the wetland areas and requested a PUD <br />me owners association to maintain and <br />e conservation easement would be place on <br />Mr. Hill explained the concep eing displayed was created before they addressed <br />shortening the depth of the lots with a conservation easement being on the areas outside <br />of the lots. <br />Donlin stated this is being deemed as a conservation development but she is not <br />comfortable with that because all know that you cannot develop wetlands and they are <br />already federally and locally protected. The danger of encroachment is usually at the <br />edge where residents dump grass clippings, etc. Donlin stated the likelihood of being <br />able to police that type of activity is difficult, however, it may be possible that the <br />homeowners association can hold each other accountable. <br />Donlin stated she is interested in conversation planning with the new urbanism and asked <br />what makes this a conservation development since all of the upland area is being divided <br />into "cookie cutter" lots. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.