My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/26/2001 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
09/26/2001 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2014 3:09:56 PM
Creation date
7/31/2014 11:28:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
09/26/2001
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.
/
55
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 JUNE 27, 2001 <br />Donlin explained the disparity for a 500 -unit development but allow for only 50 <br />units /year. Trehus agreed that phasing was a major drawback. <br />Donlin stated the City was using a 20,500 population cap, and the concern was the need <br />to build new schools. She asked how they were to respond. Trehus stated that if the <br />numbers were adjusted it would be 38 homes /year. Grochala stated that when the <br />Comprehensive Plan was started the population was12,000, and there had been dramatic <br />growth recently. The council will need to address this issue as the city begins working on <br />the plan implementation. <br />Chair Lanyon indicated that the caps were very important, but so were the rates. If the <br />rates were too fast the Boards begin to lose their effectiveness. The Board wants to help <br />staff to develop ordinances. Grochala responded that the ordinances would enforce the <br />goals and with the Comprehensive Plan there was a consensus to build on. The <br />Conservation Development Ordinance could be a first step. <br />Trehus stated that the Comprehensive Plan was limited because the language creates no <br />impetus to make it happen from the developers. Grochala answered that the availability <br />of water and sewer would be on of the limiting factors for development. <br />Chair Lanyon asked now that the Comprehensive Plan was approved, would the City <br />adhere to the numbers. Grochala answered that a policy decision would need to be made <br />clarifying the 147 units per year versus the 2020 population. <br />Grundhofer pointed out that the new Subdivision Ordinance was not in place yet. <br />Grochala agreed that a lot was dependent on the Metropolitan Council's approval. The <br />majority of issues deal with housing density and affordable housing. <br />Chair Lanyon suggested having a priority list of which ordinances to work on. Grochala <br />added it may be practical for the board to work on components of ordinances. <br />Kukonen expressed concern over the expansion of the MUSA with the proposed growth <br />scenario. He was hoping for a'separation.of MUSA and non -MUSA. Grochala <br />responded that the cost effectiveness of extending utilities to certain areas may provide <br />for the limitation of growth in certain areas, and could encourage clustering and setting <br />aside open space: <br />Kukonen indicated that two hot topics were MUSA expansion and Metropolitan Council. <br />Chair Lanyon stated that the Comprehensive Plan had been passed, even though it was <br />not exactly what the Board wanted. He pointed out to the Board that it can still affect the <br />implementation of the Plan through ordinances. <br />Trehus asked Grochala if he had seen the Environmental Handbook. The Handbook <br />outlined the process, and would become the basis for the ordinances. He asked what <br />would happen when the Handbook and Comprehensive Plan did not agree. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.