My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09-09-24 - City Council Agenda Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2024
>
Searchable Packets
>
09-09-24 - City Council Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2024 2:17:26 PM
Creation date
9/9/2024 2:10:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
09/09/2024
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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
Council Minutes -13- June 24, 2024 <br /> <br />Randy Rennaker, 379 Carl Street, Lino Lakes, stated that he is a property owner in the subject <br />area in the northwest quadrant. So, he has a vested interest in this conversation about future <br />development and a potential moratorium. He stated that he supports the moratorium. He cited <br />the recent Judge's decision on the White Bear Lake water ban and questioned the impact of the <br />decision on future wells that are going to be constructed within the city. He asked if the city is <br />going to take the opportunity during this moratorium to investigate these water issues related <br />to the White Bear Lake lawsuit. <br />Coral Digatono, 471 Andall St, Lino Lakes, stated that to reduce the number of redundant <br />speeches tonight, she has been asked to speak on behalf of 1,000’s of Lino Lakes residents, who <br />strongly support the proposed moratorium as it exercises the City's stated right as laid out in <br />the 2020 Comprehensive Plan to Master Plan the Main Street gateway to our city. Given the <br />size and scope of these proposed developments moving slowly and prudently protects both the <br />city and all developers involved. <br />Dr. Abdirashid Shire, 2150 Watermark Way, Lino Lakes, said that their home is in the new <br />Watermark development. He called out that an AUAR should have been done not at the time of <br />development but in anticipating of development. He stated that he is in favor of the Madinah <br />Lakes project and opposed to the moratorium. He highlighted the Community Development <br />Directors comments that we did not achieve the level of development we want to see in our <br />city. So here now we have this wonderful opportunity that will make our city grow and more. <br />He does not see why we need to stop that or prevent that from happening. <br />Hara Zarhad, 3116 28th Avenue NE, Blaine, said that a one-year moratorium is not properly <br />justified. No other applicants are applying to develop in this area. He questioned if water supply <br />issues were a concern, why wasn’t the entire city being considered. If a moratorium was <br />needed to prepare a Master Plan, why was a full year needed to complete that. He said that <br />other reasons he has heard for adopting a moratorium are open space, wildlife, and keeping a <br />way of life as it is right now. He asked what is the real reason for adopting a moratorium. <br />Nasiruddin Muhammad, 10514 Hawthorn Trail, Woodbury, said that he has come a long way <br />here to address Mayor Rafferty and members of the council. He said that he is here to express <br />his support for the Madinah Lakes project and to oppose the moratorium. He stated that we all <br />desire to live in an area that is underdeveloped, less developed, pristine, and we all want <br />literally to kind of lock the door after we get into a certain space. But when we live in a large <br />metropolitan area, growth is going to happen. The only question is how do we manage and <br />control the growth? He stated other cities have tried to stop growth. He said Lake Elmo fought <br />all the way to the State Supreme Court. They lost because the Met Council wanted to develop <br />higher density in Lake Elmo, but the city didn't want to. So, it's not possible to stop growth. The <br />question then becomes how we manage the growth and the moratorium is just putting up a <br />sign and saying, we don't want any growth here. It's just another way of trying to stop growth, <br />what you really want to do is, you know, go through the planning process, because all of those <br />issues can be addressed as part of the planning process. There's nothing here that has been <br />brought up that cannot be addressed during the regular planning process. He requested to stop <br />the moratorium and stated if you're going to do the moratorium anyway, then make sure that
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.