My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/26/2001 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
09/26/2001 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2014 3:09:56 PM
Creation date
7/31/2014 11:28:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
09/26/2001
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.
/
55
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 JUNE 27, 2001 <br />could be an issue of exceeding the allowable fill for a wetland if one was found to be <br />present. <br />Kukonen indicated he had driven by the property and believed the Watershed District <br />should be contacted. He indicated he thought there could be other places to build. <br />Chair Lanyon indicated the two issues were that they may need to fill the area, and they <br />would be adding to the impervious surfaces. <br />Kukonen inquired if there was a model to look at such as Clearwater Creek with the <br />swails. <br />Chair Lanyon stated that the Board should approve the second paragraph as the <br />recommendation, with the addition that the City come up with examples in the City to <br />show homeowners. <br />Kukonen moved to pass the second paragraph as the Board's recommendation. <br />Trehus added that the concerns should be a condition of approval.; He noted that the <br />Planning and Zoning recommends approval or denial, and do not limit themselves to <br />passing on recommendations. He urged the Board to be clear in its recommendations, and <br />submitted that an addition to the recommendation could be that it did not support or <br />opposing the variance request. <br />Grundhofer inquired at what point the Watershed District come into the process. Asleson <br />answered that they would be contacted if a wetland were built over a certain number of <br />feet. <br />O'Connell added if the project is 5,000 -sq. ft. or less the Watershed District did not have <br />to be contacted. <br />Grochala stated that the request was for a variance, so the recommendation could be <br />denial if the project impacted a wetland. " � <br />Ym °ti <br />Trehus noted that they were asking for a variance in setback and could possibly be a <br />drainage easement. Grochala presented a diagram of the plan and explained that the <br />proposed building was not located within a drainage easement. He explained that the <br />zoning ordinance required accessory buildings to be located no closer to the front <br />property line than the principle building. <br />Grundhofer stated the map had no scale. <br />Grochala explained the ponds were somewhat limiting the placement of the structure, he <br />was estimating the placement at about 30 -ft. from the main structure. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.