My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/30/2001 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
05/30/2001 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2014 2:05:24 PM
Creation date
7/30/2014 12:42:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
05/30/2001
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.
/
131
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
48 -57 Greenway Corridors <br />— [See Env. Bd. comments - What (if anything) about this section needs redoing? <br />— Does HEP &CD adequately define greenway corridors? <br />49 [purpose] <br />3. re: wildlife habitat <br />— How are they identifying what wildlife habitat and what wildlife movement they <br />want to "allow for "? Should this be stated in more focused and pro- active <br />manner, e.g. identifying particular wildlife species, types of habitats, and <br />strategies for protection? <br />53&57[implementation] <br />re: relationship with transportation corridors and utilities <br />— Should statement be added on avoiding damage to greenway corridors and their <br />natural features by the location and construction of transportation and utilities? <br />— What is mean by 2.c? How should it be reworded <br />2. re: regulations /zoning ordinances <br />— Should this explicitly reference the tree protection ordinance? <br />— re: 2b on performance standards - What additional topics are critical to be <br />included in performance standards (e.g. protection and management of native <br />plant communities adjoining greenways)? <br />3. See comments above - on criteria for where trails are not appropriate within <br />greenways. <br />Land Use Note: none of Land Use section included in plan copy for 5/8 discussion. <br />59 -64 Introduction / Regional Setting / Local Forecasts <br />64 -74 Growth Management / Growth Management Methods/ Growth Areas -MUSA <br />73 re: criteria for not approving a subdivision in MUSA reserve <br />— See Env. Bd. recommendation on need for dedication of a minimum of 50% <br />permanent open space (noted here and in many other places in plan e.g. p. 82). <br />Why should this open space be exclusive of slopes? <br />81 re: staged residential clustering <br />— Ck Env. Bd. comment that no community does this. What about the fact that <br />Met Council [recommends] this practice? <br />GENERAL LAND USE PLAN ELEMENTS <br />74 General Land Use Plan <br />79 Rural Land Uses <br />79 [Objectives] <br />— What are the City's objectives related to working forests, tree farms, and <br />landscape nurseries? <br />82 re: zoning performance standard for rural residential clustering <br />1. re: 50% of land preserved as open space <br />— Can working forests also be explicitly stated as open space use? <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.