My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/29/2003 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2003
>
10/29/2003 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/5/2014 1:12:06 PM
Creation date
8/4/2014 11:14:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
10/29/2003
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.
/
67
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 <br />OCTOBER 30, 2002 <br />Chair Kukonen inquired about the depth of the sand. Mr. McCully responded that <br />the site was very low, so it would be about two to three feet deep. <br />Grundhofer asked for an example of a site that was very low and the system <br />worked.' Mr. McCully answered that the bank on 35E was a good example. The <br />water leaving the system into the sewer was clear and only a trickle. <br />Mr. McCully stated that pervious paving areas would be vacuum cleaned once a <br />year. He had used them in Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and in Wisconsin. <br />Asleson stated that it was a well - designed treatment train, however his only <br />question was the final destination of the water above the groundwater. Mr. <br />McCully stated that another soil boring could be done on the west side and that it <br />would not be a problem. The system needed to be verified. The species of trees <br />needed to be changed such as the honeysuckle. The only other concern was <br />lighting issues. <br />Chair Kukonen requested that the new copies of the lighting codes be sent to the <br />developer. He called for a motion per the approval of the City Engineer, a <br />redesigning of the lighting plan, and the noted species changed. <br />Halen made a motion to approve with the recommendations of staff and Board. <br />O'Dea seconded the motion. <br />Donlin reiterated her concern over the use of pesticides. Asleson indicated that <br />the Best Management Practices were encouraged for storage and maintenance. <br />He indicated that the site was on a sanitary sewer. There was filtration at the <br />doors where any spills would occur. <br />Halen accepted the friendly amendment. Schneider seconded the motion. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br />B. Eagle Brook Church, EAW Comments <br />Asleson introduced the topic by reviewing the background material. A citizen <br />petition was submitted to the Environmental Quality Board to perform an <br />Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the development proposal. <br />When the application was received, the project developer was required to supply <br />all data to the Responsible Government Unit, which prepared the EAW using a <br />standard form supplied by the Environmental Quality Board. The Responsible <br />Government Unit was the City of Lino Lakes, with Jeff Smyser as the Lead <br />Person in the review. The EAW was prepared by the information supplied, and <br />was approved by the City Council for distribution. Copies had been sent to <br />several review agencies for a comment period of 30 days. After the comment <br />period, the Responsible Government Unit would respond to comments and <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.