My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/12/2009 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2009
>
01/12/2009 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2014 2:10:13 PM
Creation date
5/19/2014 12:22:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
01/12/2009
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.
/
68
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 />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />DRAFT <br />CITY OF LINO LAKES <br />MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION <br />DRAFT 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW <br />DATE <br />TIME STARTED <br />TIME ENDED <br />MEMBERS PRESENT <br />MEMBERS ABSENT <br />: December 8, 2008 <br />. 7:45 p.m. <br />. 9:00 p.m. <br />: Councilmember Gallup, O'Donnell, <br />Stoltz, Reinert and Mayor Bergeson <br />: None <br />Staff members present: Community Development Director, Michael Grochala (part) <br />17 Mayor Bergeson noted that the purpose of this special meeting is to continue review of <br />18 the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). He also noted that Community <br />19 Development Director Grochala would be present for the beginning of the meeting only <br />20 to update the council and receive directions from the council on their information needs. <br />21 The council updated itself on where in the individual members are at with the review of <br />22 the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update (the Plan). Comments were offered as <br />23 follows: <br />24 The Plan is wrongly being driven by criteria that doesn't fit the direction that <br />25 the city has taken to this point and should take forward, and the reasoning <br />26 behind the criteria doesn't fly mainly because it isn't originating from the <br />27 citizens. <br />28 - The 6,600 number seems to be a much higher rate of growth that the city has <br />29 experienced in history; even though it's linked to a market that isn't moving, it <br />30 could allow for unfettered development and an unmanageable pace if the <br />31 market were to change. <br />32 Concern about the amount of affordable housing required in the Plan and the <br />33 concept of putting most of it in certain areas of the city; it would more <br />34 appropriately be spread out. The city should have real planning for affordable <br />35 housing. <br />36 - It's important to allow for future opportunities; growing too fast can cause a <br />37 loss of opportunity. <br />38 - The five -year staging plan is a good improvement but the target numbers don't <br />39 seem right. There should be checkpoints along the way that would allow the <br />40 council to have control along the way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.