My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/13/2002 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2002
>
03/13/2002 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2014 10:35:07 AM
Creation date
2/13/2014 10:35:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
03/13/2002
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />March 13, 2002 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />project. The petitioners submitted their peti tion to the Minnesota Environmental Quality <br />Board (EQB), which forwarded it to the C ity. This process complied with State <br />requirements. <br />The petition requested that the EQB act as the responsible govern mental unit for the <br />EAW. In accordance with the rules, the EQB decided which governmental unit had the <br />greatest responsibility for supervising or approvi ng the project as a whole. In this case, it <br />was the City, and so the EQB fo rwarded the petition to staff. <br />Staff indicated no final decisi on could be made on the projec t until: a) the City decided <br />no EAW was needed, or; b) the City decided an EAW was needed, and afterward decided <br />no environmental impact statement was needed. <br />Staff stated the City needed to decide if an EAW should be prepared. If, because of the <br />nature or location of the project, it may have the potential for significant environmental <br />effects, an EAW should be prepared. If the City did not think there may be the potential <br />for significant environmental eff ects, it should deny the petition. <br />Staff indicated the decision on preparing an EAW must include written findings. <br />Mr. Smyser indicated the trees cleared out of the island should not have happened and <br />staff will send out a letter tomorrow stating th at no more activity could be done until the <br />EAW was prepared. <br />Mr. Corson stated he was listed on the petit ion. He asked what indicated Mr. Vaughan <br />could not clear trees on the property. Mr. Sm yser replied there was not anything in city <br />ordinances specifically that said that a prope rty owner could not cut trees, but because the <br />owner had submitted a development proposal, this changed the context of what an owner <br />could do. However, he indicated this was very vague and it was something that would <br />need to be looked at in the future. At any rate, because of the EAW issue, no work on the <br />project should be occurring. <br />Mr. Lyden asked for an explanation of exem ptions under residential development. Mr. <br />Smyser explained what the exemptions were. <br />Mr. Lyden asked who paid for the EAW. Mr. Smyser replied the developer paid for it <br />whether it was mandatory or discretionary. <br />Mr. Lyden stated if the City wanted th e EAW done, the City should pay for it. He <br />suggested the City buy the island for the public good. Mr. Smyser replied he would <br />convey Mr. Lyden’s recommendation to the City Council. <br />B. Development Review Task Force Update <br />Mr. Smyser stated they have been holding monthly meetings on the third Thursday of <br />every month. He indicated the Task Force was addressing the subdi vision ordinance that <br />regulated the division of la nd. He stated the Task Force would soon be addressing <br />elements of the zoning ordinance as well.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.