My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/22/2006 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2006
>
02/22/2006 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2014 10:56:06 AM
Creation date
8/5/2014 1:20:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
02/22/2006
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.
/
56
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 AUGUST 31, 2005 <br />Asleson inquired if they were going to integrate the surface water train. He also <br />asked if Rehbein was still working on the plan. Mr. Hayes responded that they <br />were still working with Rehbein. <br />Bor questioned if the conservation inventory indicated an area was a wetland. Mr. <br />Hayes answered that the area was on a 100 -year flood plain, but there were about <br />14.7 acres of wetland on site. He referred to a map of the current wetlands on site. <br />Asleson stated that before ditching, it was all wetland. O'Dea added that the <br />Board attempts to preserve the natural environment, and make sure the wetlands <br />were accounted for. <br />Grundhofer mentioned the wetlands and open space attract wildlife. Ms. Lendrahl <br />responded they have incorporated wildlife corridors within the plan, such as <br />culverts under paths. <br />Asleson stated rare plants have come up in sites where disturbance. He restated <br />that the stormwater treatment was critical, and the buffer areas were important for <br />songbirds and deer. Mr. Hayes mentioned his front yard was a natural prairie, so <br />he was familiar with the benefits of native plantings. <br />Kukonen stated in the Handbook, the City had expressed the value of continuous <br />wildlife areas. <br />Asleson mentioned that the size of the site was comparable to Clearwater Creek. <br />Bor inquired about the acreage conceptually designated for open space. Mr. <br />Hayes answered the open space would be 80 -95 acres, or about 26 %. <br />Kukonen indicated a conservation development would have 50% open space. <br />Bor stated that the residents were very invested in the community, and she <br />encouraged them to work with everyone to make the development different than <br />other cities. Mr. Hayes agreed, and indicated that he understood that they were a <br />gateway, and wanted cohesiveness within the community. <br />Asleson stated the open space was designed to meet the standards in the AUAR, <br />and the details were not yet apparent. Mr. Hayes answered they were constrained <br />by the process. <br />Grundhofer inquired of the 26% designated for open space, how much would be <br />open for wildlife. Mr. Hayes mentioned it could be designed into the project. <br />3 DRAFT MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.