My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
12/20/2006 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2006
>
12/20/2006 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/7/2014 2:43:42 PM
Creation date
8/6/2014 11:36:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
12/20/2006
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.
/
45
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 />Nature's Refuge <br />DRAFT DECEMBER 14, 2006 EAW Record of Decision <br />page 10 <br />Response: The site is large and there are two possible accesses. Pine Street is one of <br />them. The route of construction vehicles has not been specified, but it is likely that Pine <br />Street would be needed for access during construction. Lino Lakes will discuss <br />possibilities with the developer. Lino Lakes does enforce requirements for mitigating <br />dust during construction and limits work times on construction sites. <br />• Columbus notes that if the improvements on CSAH 14 are not completed prior to the <br />development, the traffic analysis will not be accurate and Pine Street will be affected. <br />Response: The traffic analysis assumed signalization of the CSAH 14 /CSAH 23 <br />intersection when concluding the intersection would function at Level of Service C or <br />better. Without a signal, the LOS would be F for many movements. As noted in the <br />EAW, the timing of the installation of a signal will need to be an important consideration <br />in the review of the Nature's Refuge project application. <br />Municipal Utilities <br />• The City of Columbus is interested in discussing the possibility of extending sewer <br />and water service further north on Lake Drive to serve Columbus. <br />Response: Lino Lakes has not previously planned to oversize sanitary sewer facilities <br />to serve property outside of Lino Lakes. Several issues arise when considering doing so. <br />Columbus should discuss the situation with the Metropolitan Council to see if the <br />Council's system plans allow for utility service. We would need to determine the <br />capacity of Metropolitan Council facilities into which the Lino Lakes system flows. <br />Next, the capacity of the Lino Lakes system is not endless, and planning studies to date <br />indicate there is not excessive capacity. The feasibility of extending the Lino Lakes pipe <br />would need to be examined. The cost of the feasibility study as well as construction <br />would need to be examined as well. Lino Lakes would need to ask if serving land in <br />Columbus should preempt providing service for land within Lino Lakes along Lake <br />Drive. While Columbus' proposal may be feasible, it raises larger questions that would <br />need to be resolved. <br />Water Quality, Wetlands, Stormwater Management <br />• The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) asks for clarification of the statement in <br />EAW Item 6 that "The goal will be to cause no net change to existing drainage <br />patterns in remaining wetlands ". Does this refer to rate and /or volume? Changes in <br />volumes could impact the wetland resources. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.