My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/30/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
05/30/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2016 12:06:13 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 4:24:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
05/30/2001
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 MAY 30, 2001 <br />Donlin inquired who indicated whether the concerns had been adequately addressed. <br />Asleson pointed out before the Planning and Zoning Meeting, he prepares a 1-2 page <br />summary report which is then attached <br />Chair Lanyon reiterated the Planning and Zoning Board received the recommendations <br />from the Environmental Board. Mr. Rafferty mentioned there needed to be flags on the <br />issues of great concern. <br />Donlin submitted the recommendations could use red, yellow or green flags to indicate <br />the overall response of the Board. <br />Mr. Rafferty described the constraints of the codes, if the developers were compliant, the <br />recommendations could not be enforced but only encouraged. Trehus explained <br />depending on how the recommendations are processed, the impact could be minimal. <br />Mr. Rafferty lamented poor communications between boards. Asleson explained that the <br />time between submittal and reviewal could not be increased. <br />Mr. Rafferty indicated the recommendations of the Environmental`Board';do not come <br />across to the Planning and Zoning Board with any impact, but t1ebest information <br />usually came from the staff. Asleson answered if there was more thine to prepare, GIS <br />could be used with the flags. � <br />Mach mentioned it was difficult to remember the bi h ictur uhen'the Board was asked <br />g p,;<w <br />to comment on a project by project basis. $ ,,%' <br />Trehus urged the members of the PlanningraY ld, oning"B ►ard to read the Environmental <br />Handbook. Donlin agreed explaining e cit Ci040 spent considerable money to produce <br />the document. <br />Asleson suggested the Envir,$n <br />the three-legged stool model. <br />community, and even <br />xunei l Hanilbitok. could be summed up by remembering <br />exeatllological, economic, and cultural impacts to the <br />affected. <br />Chair Lanyon stated there".was a need to focus efforts on changing the ordinances. <br />Kukonen indica-601'1e need 10 work together to get the ordinances. Mr. Rafferty <br />:gin <br />concurred there neededrto be a minimal level of acceptance. <br />�.JK�,^,1Lsy12p <br />O'Connell inquirel: about the townhouses on a recent development project which were <br />encouraged4by the Environmental Board, but were rejected by the Planning and Zoning <br />Board. Shelas at a Planning and Zoning meeting and wondered how to address the <br />issue on behalf of the Environmental Board. <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.