08/29/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 8 identified. An all- encompassing prohibition of development as proposed, could generate many unintended consequences. Staff reviewed the steps that should be undertaken prior to consideration of an interim Ordinance. By addressing such steps, the City would be able to better ascertain the need for an interim ordinance and, if warranted, the appropriate scope it should have. Staff also presented the 2001 Environmental Board goals and stated the City Council would be reviewing the proposed goals with the Environmental Board at an upcoming joint meeting. They would also use the meeting as an opportunity to review the ordinance establishing the board, the expectations of the City Council and the Environmental Board and the relationship of the Environmental Board to other City boards. Mr. Lyden asked how many homes had been built this year. Mr. Grochala replied he was not sure, but they would check that out and have that information available at a future discussion. C. Packet Delivery Mr. Rafferty stated he had brought this issue up previously an + made a previous recommendation about the packets being delivered in a mor . �� ely fashion. He stated the current deadline of Friday did not give the P & Z Board memb ` Py= dequate time to review the information. He stated he believed part of his job of b l a boar giber was having adequate time to review the packet thoroughly. He recomme R ,- d hng a minimum of 168 hours to review the packet of information, which would give " "r' • and members one week to review everything and make informed decision. He ted he di • k � • ty • elieve this was an impossible request. Mr. Grochala replied at this point he of pre'. ed to make a recommendation for a change. He stated the City staff was conti w ly s ding o ttpackets for various meetings. He stated one of the things they were working on the information was complete in the packets. He stated by the time the pa to ` P & Z Board, most of the developments had already been through the other B • g `ds and '�r j d State Agencies, and what frequently happened was that all of that informs get back to the City in a timely fashion. He indicated a large range of issues needed t a essed for each packet. He stated this did not mean things could not be modified, but at the esent time, he could not recommend any change at the present time. Mr. Zych asked what the time -frame was in the city that Mr. Grochala was previously at. Mr. Grochala stated it was pretty much the same time -frame as the City of Lino Lakes had. Mr. Zych asked if the information could be e- mailed. Mr. Smyser stated the problem was that the drawings /diagrams could not be sent by e-mail. Mr. Rafferty stated the client in this case was the taxpayers and it was not acceptable that they could not get the packet done sooner. He stated he understood there was a lot of work to get the packets done, and a lot of paper pushing, but these were important issues and he needed to be adequately informed to make intelligent decisions. He stated he owed it to the citizens to be adequately informed.