My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/05/2000 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1999-2020 Park Board Packets
>
2000 Park Board Packets
>
06/05/2000 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2014 12:57:10 PM
Creation date
7/24/2014 9:48:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
06/05/2000
Park 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.
/
127
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
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 21, 2000 <br />Staff reviewed the method used to calculate the amount of MUSA requested in the draft <br />plan. Staff referred to page 65 -66 of the Plan indicating the calculation. Staff advised the <br />1.5 multiplier was used because of the undevelopable land within the City due to <br />wetlands. Staff noted a multiplier would not be needed if there were no wetlands. <br />Staff noted the City has complete control over MUSA allocation. There are no penalties <br />for having an excess of MUSA in the MUSA bank. MUSA allocation can be method <br />used to control growth. What needs to be determined is the City policies regarding <br />allocation of MUSA. <br />Council Member Carlson expressed concern regarding the Plan requesting too much <br />MUSA. <br />Mayor Bergeson stated the question is whether or not extra MUSA is a good or bad thing. <br />The previous Council was split regarding that issue. <br />Staff added that requesting additional MUSA from the Metropolit e _il after the <br />Plan is adopted is a costly and lengthy process. <br />Staff advised the Plan has to be legal and legally support <br />laid out in the document. Staff did discuss the legal <br />the City Attorney. <br />echanisms are <br />of mechanisms with <br />Staff reviewed the control mechanism tion in detail noting the MUSA <br />allocation rules. <br />Council Member Dahl re of . ssible septic system failure areas. Staff <br />advised any septic syste ars old can possibly fail. <br />Mayor Bergeson s <br />need to be included <br />unsewered residenti <br />t figures relating to MUSA for septic failure areas may <br />e'UU'lan. The Plan also does not include MUSA for low - density <br />eas. <br />Staff requested Council Members level of comfort with the control mechanisms noting <br />that more detail is need. <br />Mayor Bergeson advised Council Members to review the staff handout in detail. If <br />Council Members have any more questions or issues they should be referred to staff. <br />Council Member Carlson expressed concern about the concept of MUSA and high <br />density. She stated she believes the City will not limit new houses to 147. The MUSA <br />numbers and zoning ordinances should fit at a maximum of 147 new homes per year. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.