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
Donlin indicated there is bias when a company hires another company to report <br />findings. Asleson continued that it had been impacted. <br />Chair Lanyon mentioned that there was a difference between the wetland <br />delineation of 20 years ago and that of today in the vegetation. <br />Mach pointed out that there was no plan for restoration, and submitted the <br />possibility the Board not approve. Donlin agreed in light of the ditches and the <br />past projects the company has worked on, they have not fulfilled the obligations of <br />those projects. <br />Chair Lanyon explained that the Board was concerned about those previously <br />unfulfilled obligations. <br />Mach indicated that the goal should be to raise the environmental quality of the <br />parcel, which would ultimately increase the value. <br />Chair Lanyon advised the applicable information should be reissued, because even <br />if the area was degraded, it may not take much to restore the area to increase its <br />value. <br />Asleson identified the parcel was the same size as Peregrine Pass at 80 acres, <br />where the streets were narrowed, retention ponds added. With no conservation <br />ordinance on the books, there seems to be no way to implement the same <br />procedure with 12th and Holly. <br />Trehus noted the plat map had been modified, and Smyser's report stated concerns <br />over multiple driveways that connect to 12th Street or Holly Drive. He explained <br />that there should be no driveways on arterial roads, because traffic congestion was <br />an environmental issue. <br />Chair Lanyon submitted that other groups would follow this example, Lots 1 and <br />8 with a driveway going onto 12th Street should be removed to retain open space. <br />Donlin stated that Smyser again supports it with the statement, "When 5 to 7 of <br />the 14 lots don't meet the standards..." <br />Grundhofer reviewed the recommendations to reduce the number of lots, which <br />were not attempted, but merely changed the street position. The present proposal <br />threatens the potential fen site. She then asked if the person in the existing house <br />was developing the property. <br />Chair Lanyon stated that the proposal was a step backwards in terms of efforts <br />promoting green developments. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.