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 NOVEMBER 28, 2001 <br />Donlin stated that she was hoping water volumes could be explained and not <br />merely a discussion held on surface water management. Asleson assured the <br />Board that NEMO would be able to address water volumes. <br />F. Residential Moratorium — Asleson stated he spoke with Mr. Smyser who <br />indicated public hearings were planned for December 17, 2001 and January 14, <br />2002 on the residential moratorium covering residential lots and MUSA. Minor <br />subdivisions and the 400 units on the books would not be affected. <br />Trehus stated that the Planning and Zoning Board had tabled it pending <br />Metropolitan Council's decision on the Comprehensive Plan. Asleson responded <br />that they were not linked, but had already been pursued. Donlin added this was a <br />direct result of the Environmental Board's actions. <br />Asleson indicated that it would give the Board one year, so it was a good time for <br />NEMO and Wildland Urban Interface. <br />E. NEMO (continued) — Donlin stated that NEMO sho <br />vision as it relates to carrying capacity. Asleson u <br />final result, not the timeline. <br />F. Residential Moratorium (continued) — Tre <br />the goal, and yet was doing the opposit He <br />were sound or unsound. He stated it w <br />possible parallel to North Oaks. <br />ow about the 2020 <br />he Board to focus on the <br />ointed out that the City adopted <br />guidance on policies that <br />related and inquired about a <br />G. Pheasant Preserve Update ed the application had been submitted <br />and was being processes ,.B d they received the acceptance for the bridge. <br />Trehus stated that it ap . ed o of character for this particular developer. <br />Asleson noted that the de = r had a concern for tree preservation, and the <br />critique would focus on Sh eline Management. <br />7. DEPARTMENT REPORTS <br />A. Forestry — Asleson stated that the rams had to be repaired to work in the area <br />of oak wilt. <br />B. Solid Waste Recycling — Asleson announced that SCORE money was <br />available which needed to be used for recycling education. <br />C. Meeting Minutes — Asleson indicated there were some issues on the August <br />minutes after they had been accepted as a final draft. <br />• Chair Kukonen inquired about the route of the minutes after they left were <br />completed by the recording secretary. The recording secretary indicated that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.