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
uninterrupted natural setting the leads from one park setting to another. <br />Section 5 - Administration <br />• <br />i....One option for ensuring the protection of key ecological resources <br />is public <br />purchase of the property. The city is fortunate to already have a <br />significant <br />portion of some of the most diverse ecological systems already protected <br />by <br />city and county parks. In some cases, it may be advantageous to purchase <br />additional significant properties that can not be protected in any other <br />way <br />However, given the land area already under public ownership, such as Rice <br />Creek Regional Park Reserve, this will be more the exception than the <br />rule <br />More realistically though, the public's willingness and capacity to <br />purchase <br />additional open space is at best uncertain. The value of the land in Lino <br />Lakes <br />has and will continue to escalate on into the future. The resources that <br />are <br />held near and dear now also tend to result in heftier land values. <br />From a pragmatic standpoint, the route to protecting these valuable lands <br />is by <br />having them set aside through the private development planning process. <br />It is <br />this reality that underscores the need to give the conservation <br />Amhdevelopment <br />II/approach to planning so much attention in this handbook. It also <br />underscores <br />how important it is that the relationship between the city and the <br />development community be heightened into a strong working partnership. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments <br />made by the Board: <br />E. 1 . Saddle Club Project Update — It was noted that the project went to the Planning and Zoning Board with <br />recommendations concerning lot size, so the applicant came back with a new proposal. Staff talked with the DNR <br />who indicated that hydroelectricity it could be restored. Greenways do a number of things like creating buffers, open <br />space and most importantly connections between ecosystems and open space areas for wildlife and people. Staff <br />requested comments on the latest proposal, which would be passed on to the Planning and Zoning Board. The <br />greenway needed to be preserved in the long term for the good of the public. Through private or public means, it <br />needed to be managed. <br />Donlin asked the number of houses in the latest proposal. Asleson stated that there were 40, which were more spread <br />out than before. <br />Trehus noted that the original lots were larger but the detached townhomes shrank the lots. Asleson stated that <br />because they are considered conservation developments, the elements must take on long -term importance. <br />Donlin expressed concern for the term "conservation development" because it implied that stringent guidelines were <br />applied, when there were none. <br />Asleson stated that Peregrine Pass needed a zoning variance, and part of the Saddle Club property was in MUSA. <br />Ilapicc ct_PepeazaovBoapS Xari o9 Aavo Acucar <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.