03/27/2002 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING 5. ACTION ITEMS None. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Development Regulations Task Force Update FEBRUARY 27, 2002 Chair Kukonen recapped the meeting for the Board. He stated that the task force reviewed the background including by -laws and policies, and tried to answer the question, "What constitutes a premature subdivision?" A plat could be denied if it was considered premature. He explained they had not seen the final draft of the document, but roads could be moved to a lower class if development occurred in some areas. Other factors affecting roads were traffic, water supply and waste disposals. Final plat growth would be controlled by MUSA allocation. Asleson stated that people were working together, and the meeting was productive. Donlin agreed. She was encouraged that the issues were in manageable parts, and that there would be no leapfrogging of MUSA. Asleson indicated that Grochala had done a good job. B. Goals /2003 Asleson distributed copies of the goals for 1998, and referred to the goals from 2002 which were in the packets. Since the 2002 budget had been fixed, Grochala recommended the Board work on setting 2003 goals. Reviewing the previous goals, many had grown more detailed, or had already been accomplished. He explained that some of the recommendations the Board had put forth had set the stage for activities. Chair Kukonen stated that the Board members should bring in ideas for the 2003 goals next month. He indicated that several of the duties in the job description could be made into goals. Asleson pointed out hat a website had been established with a link to the Bell Museum, and could be added to in the future. O'Connell noted that Earth Day would be an opportunity to add to the website concerning Earth Day activities. Donlin suggested some of the new information resulting from the Urban Interface could be identified. Asleson mentioned that some interesting activities had begun in some neighborhoods. Chair Kukonen continued to review the 2002 goals, and commented that for #5 the Board had been weak on collaborating with other similar boards. 2 DRAFT MINUTES