My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/18/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
07/18/2001 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2016 11:58:54 AM
Creation date
6/5/2014 4:27:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
07/18/2001
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.
/
10
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 JULY 18, 2001 <br />DATE <br />TIME STARTED <br />TIME ENDED <br />MEMBERS PRESENT <br />MEMBERS ABSENT <br />CITY OF LINO LAKES <br />MINUTES <br />: July 18, 2001 <br />: 4:48 P.M. <br />: 8:18 P.M. <br />: Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Scott Lanyon, <br />Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus (arrived at 6:27 p.m.). <br />: Amy Donlin and Dave Mach. <br />Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Community <br />Development Director Michael Grochala, and Economic Development Director Brian Wessel. <br />CALL TO ORDER <br />Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 4:48 p.m. <br />APPROVAL OF AGENDA <br />The agenda was approved unanimously. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS <br />•, , <br />A. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), for Ryan Companies/Marketplace <br />project — Grochala reviewed the background of :41eproject timeline and the rationale for <br />the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. ,The WOik§lje§t was not an approval process, <br />but a means of identifying issues on the i0Paetaf;9, particular project in several areas <br />including traffic, noise, and biological factors. The City Council was the Regulating <br />Governmental Unit (RGU) and would either approve or deny the project. The 30 -day <br />reviewal period ended on July 11, 2001, a*she,gify had 30 days to act. Comments were <br />received from the Minnesota NIuticiii Control Agency, Minnesota Department of <br />Transportation, the Minnesota Ilfsto,fiallSodiety, and the Minnesota Department of Natural <br />Resources. There were fo4`*:etois-ihat,evaluated significant environmental effect: <br />• The extent and reversibility of theenvironmental effect. <br />• The cumulativeNtential -effects of future projects, according to a defined area and time <br />frame.,41,'” <br />41, <br />• The extent the project was subject to mitigation by a public regulatory authority, and <br />the rationale for notrequiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). <br />• The extentrilenyironmental effects could be controlled. <br />Grochala exfilainect;that there were three options for the Environmental Board to <br />recommend. <br />• Motion to 'recommend a finding of no significant impact. <br />• Motion to recommend a finding to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. <br />• Motion to recommend tabling the decision until additional information was submitted. <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.