My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/25/2001 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
04/25/2001 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2014 3:52:25 PM
Creation date
7/30/2014 11:46:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
04/25/2001
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.
/
143
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
this information in comparison to the GIS map and the developer has <br />determined the number of lots he needs to make it work. Asleson <br />reviewed the greenway alignment and mentioned the types of soils and <br />vegetation found on this site. He stated this is a good area to <br />consider for conservation development. <br />Asleson pointed out the areas of wetland delineation and wetland <br />vegetation. He also noted the areas of historic oak savanna and <br />potential for trail locations. He advised this property is just <br />outside the identified greenway expansion area, however, those <br />characteristics are present on this site. Asleson explained this <br />site is half in MUSA and half out of MUSA and there have been two <br />sketch plans to date. He stated it appears the DNR wants to take a <br />different approach on how they look at developments, resources, and <br />conservation development . so, perhaps, this can be used as a model <br />project. <br />Vice Chair Davidson asked if this is a viable greenway corridor <br />area. Asleson stated he believes it is although it may not follow <br />the same alignment indicated on the map. Also, it would create the <br />desired buffers. <br />Ross Fairbrother, representing the applicant, presented the revised <br />site plan which depicts small lot development rather than extending <br />the property lines into the wetland areas. He stated this smaller <br />compact lot design promotes conservation development. Mr. <br />Fairbrother noted this plan works around the existing wetlands and <br />tree stands to strike a balance between what is appropriate to <br />develop and what is reasonable to conserve. He stated they have <br />maintained a maximum avoidance of the wetlands. <br />Mr. Fairbrother presented a plan identifying wetlands, uplands, and <br />areas to be developed for housing, noting the acreage and <br />percentages of areas to be developed and those to be conserved. He <br />noted the smaller lots increase the area of conservation. He <br />pointed out areas of viewsheds, potential trail alignment, and <br />access points. Mr. Fairbrother addressed their intent to soften the <br />hard surface areas and stated all areas not platted for housing <br />would be deeded for a conservation easement, <br />Vice Chair Davidson asked how wide the roads would be. Mr. <br />Fairbrother stated the road width is negotiable, depending on what <br />the City wants. <br />Mach stated this plan is well thought out but he has found upland, <br />which provides habituate, suffers with these projects. He stated if <br />a conservation easement program is to be continued, diversity of <br />habituate types needs to be considered to assure a diversity of <br />wildlife is present. <br />Asleson explained the blue areas depicted on the map do not identify <br />areas of open water. <br />Mach stated he would be willing to see some trees removed if it <br />would save some upland and provide diverse nesting habitat and <br />17apxo_ &_Pspsanov_Boap5 Xizt oq Atvo Aaxea <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.