My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/27/2002 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2002
>
02/27/2002 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2014 3:41:40 PM
Creation date
7/31/2014 1:01:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
02/27/2002
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 DECEMBER 19, 2001 <br />facilitating the meetings. All the work would need to be done in about ten months. <br />Each Board would choose the members for the task force. <br />Kukonen inquired about the possibility of alternates if someone was unable to attend. <br />Grochala responded that he was trying to build continuity and consensus. He would <br />be returning to the Board in January. A land use workshop would be held and <br />Council is strongly urging attendance. NEMO would be making a presentation in the <br />beginning on January 26, 2002, food would be provided, and the workshop would run <br />from about 8:30 a.m.- 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. The task force would probably begin in <br />February. <br />Kukonen asked who would be conducting the workshop. Grochala answered he was <br />unsure who would conduct the workshop. <br />Trehus inquired if the Conservation Handbook on geenways ; oming into <br />play. Grochala stated it would play a big part in setting up t siden ,,;al PDO. The <br />greenways would be in the Subdivision part. He attemp i o br- o " the policies <br />in the areas of the Environmental Board, the greenwa Board. <br />Trehus stated the suitable land use for greenwa wou be ; ° ', and the City should <br />attempt to correlate it with the buffers. He n e - u- mo . ated April 11, 2001 had <br />useful information to incorporate, or to us oint. <br />Grochala indicated it would be benefici <br />rules, the project would probably <br />the past. <br />a developer follows a given list of <br />d. It would avoid the conflicts of <br />Trehus noted the most i con in the Handbook was the three intersecting <br />circles. <br />Kukonen asked if tho onducfing the workshop knew that a goal was to establish a <br />Conservation " ; . divisio dinance. Grochala assured the Board that they knew. <br />Donlin expresse'' on `= rn over the two numbers in the Comprehensive Plan, 147 new <br />households /year .;< rage, and a 20,500 population cap assuming 2.5 <br />people/household. Grochala answered that household sizes could fluctuate over the <br />20 year planning period. <br />Donlin reiterated that the two numbers meant everything. <br />Grochala noted that Pheasant Hills was the only development that could be approved <br />if the moratorium went through. January 14, 2002 was the deadline to be heard by <br />the Planning and Zoning Board in February, and go to Council in March. The <br />Moratorium will probably cover only residential developments. The Metropolitan <br />Council had not signed off the Comprehensive Plan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.