My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/15/2004 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2004
>
07/15/2004 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/5/2014 12:19:53 PM
Creation date
8/4/2014 2:24:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
07/15/2004
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.
/
182
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
• <br />• <br />• <br />MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA) <br />Due to limited resources available to the MPCA, they did not review the EAW and have no <br />specific comments. <br />MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT) <br />MnDOT states it has no comment: it appears there will be little impact to the highway system. <br />TOM & KIM PAWLAK <br />• Item 6: More information is needed on the bridge. Utilities crossing under the bridge is a <br />concern because of possible failures. <br />• Item 25 & 26: The bridge will have a visual impact on a scenic view. <br />• Item 7: EAW Guidelines say that the length of "linear" project should be given (roads, <br />pipelines, sewers). <br />• Item 11 says that there will be no wetland fill, including bridge abutments, while 600 cubic <br />yards of fill will be imported. Where will the fill be placed? <br />• Asks for more detail on dewatering for bridge construction noted in Item 13. <br />• Item 14: Requests a list of standard requirements that would not be met with the <br />development. <br />• Item 15: Impacts on fauna? <br />• Item 20: Solid wastes of construction are not addressed, and solid wastes crossing the bridge <br />through pipes should be addressed. <br />• Item 23: Waste trees and vegetation to be burned during construction should be addressed. <br />the developer has told residents that he would likely burn this waste vegetation. <br />• Item 25 notes parkland next to Quail Ridge neighborhood. Is the proposed project in the <br />parkland? <br />• Item 27: The island was supposed to be a park, according to the City's comprehensive park <br />plan, but then was traded for some other land. <br />• Item 28: Private utilities are not discussed. <br />• City snow clearing equipment should not be used for the private road. <br />• Statements in Item 24 regarding noise should be clarified: pile driving "would slightly <br />exceed the noise standards...namely 60 to 65 decibels." Later, text states "sound levels <br />should not exceed 90 decibels measured at 50 feet." <br />City Response: <br />Bridge information: The developer submitted additional information on the bridge in May and <br />June of 2004. This information includes computer generated graphics of the bridge and <br />supporting data. See Attachment B. <br />DRAFT July 1 2004 <br />Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision <br />page 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.