My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/26/2002 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2002
>
06/26/2002 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2014 1:55:19 PM
Creation date
7/31/2014 1:56:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
06/26/2002
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.
/
71
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 MAY 29, 2002 <br />5. ACTION ITEMS <br />A. Russian Baptist Church, Site Plan Review <br />Chair Kukonen indicated that he spoke with representatives from Rice Creek <br />Watershed District. They had issues that were essentially administrative, there <br />was no planned site visit, and the issues concerned infiltration and the two <br />ponding areas. Asleson reviewed the background, analysis and recommendations <br />from the green sheet. The Church was asking for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) <br />on 4.61 acres because it is in a rural zone on Ash Street and Baldwin Lake Road. <br />A portion in the Southern part of the site had been filled, while the Northern part <br />was hydric. The Land Classification Inventory indicated Long Grasses and Sparse <br />Tree Cover in the North with a flood plain encro > ng ,and Aspen Forest <br />Saturated in the South. <br />Donlin inquired if the Church was respon a ox ;Elie i n 1; il. ® them areas. <br />m.. <br />Asleson responded they were not responsib <br />Asleson stated the Rice Creek Watershed District <br />delineation to be submitted. Chair Ku <br />15, 2002, and included two infltrati <br />Grundhofer asked if the prope <br />Asleson pointed out that it w <br />system separated them. <br />Asleson contin <br />would be lo <br />with the <br />hook up er <br />aspen buff <br />the area of the'`` <br />ing for the wetland <br />as received on April <br />as" a <br />t that t <br />nttd. <br />e Indian Hills backyards. <br />eld for the Church's septic <br />een sheet. The proposed septic system <br />, and staff had discussed alternatives <br />but were considered not economically feasible to <br />d additional infiltration, and protecting the wet <br />`eparking lot would have impervious surfaces in <br />;arch represent <br />sewer. Staff disc <br />n addition, fu1 <br />Donlin expressed concbout several issues. Did the septic system include a <br />primary and secondary system. , Impervious surfaces should be minimized. She <br />did not understand why the Church refused to accept grant money for a better <br />system. <br />Asleson indicated the landscape plan needed modification with changes necessary <br />for the Sugar Maples and Colorado Green Spruce. The lighting plan conformed to <br />the City standards. Staff recommended approval with changes including: <br />• The submission of a tree inventory and preservation plan, maintaining the <br />buffer around the wetland. <br />• Increase infiltration around the parking areas. <br />2 Draft Minutes <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.