My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/28/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
02/28/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2016 4:30:08 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 4:21:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
02/28/2001
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.
/
13
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 FEBRUARY 28, 2001 <br />Ms. Carlson explained the Comprehensive Plan addresses the broad view, and followed <br />up with the specific documents referred to. <br />Trehus asked which takes precedence when the Comprehensive Plan and the specific <br />documents referred to are in conflict. <br />Kukonen asked if MUSA changed or zoning, in a conflict. Ms. Carlson responded that <br />20 people with changes would not change the MUSA number. The number 359 acres in <br />addition to the 520 acres, the projected numbers were not changed, and the boundaries <br />were not changed either. <br />Trehus noted 580 acres were added for residential designation. Ms. Carlson answered <br />890 originally with 359 for residential/commercial. <br />Trehus pointed out that the growth zones were over 3000 acres. Ms. Carlson explained <br />that it would not be 3000 acres of buildable land, which was clear from the GIS maps. <br />Donlin stated the growth rate was planned at 147 houses per yearnow `the,numbers are in <br />the 200's. Ms.Carlson clarified last year the number was 240, 'and the year before was <br />243, a moratorium could be done. <br />Donlin pointed out that once the Comprehensive Plan wasraccepted;„the numbers would <br />hopefully remain low. Ms. Carlson indicated that the}1VIUSA'wasthe only tool the City <br />had to control growth at the present time. pax <br />ya�'h 1L <br />Chair Lanyon asked for ideas to maintain a poactive session. One possibility could be to <br />have two meetings consisting of Proje1 Review from 6:30 to 7:35 p.m., then reconvene <br />at 7:45 p.m. for the proactive session.+t A.sleson n`o`ted one reason for going off the <br />schedule was that Mr. McQuillan cpm <br />Chair Lanyon explained that the, :B oard:was' trying to work with the developers, so he as <br />Chair was hesitant to cut them short As a result, not many goals or project updates were <br />addressed. <br />Trehus asked Asleson to contact other cities with environmental boards. Asleson <br />indicated that he'4d;d not think there were many. <br />Chair Lanyoni suggested that Asleson pursue other Twin City towns which were doing <br />y� ti7R f <br />things tha ht�'be of help to Lino Lakes Environmental Board. <br />D. Environmental Board Networking/Shakopee representative Mark McQuillan — <br />Asleson introduced Mark McQuillan who is the Director of Natural Resources for the <br />City of Shakopee, originally from the Parks and Recreation Department, who was invited <br />to listen to Board proceedings and comment on networking possibilities. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.