01/27/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003 APPROVED • 1 Councilmember Carlson stated that in Section 1002.7 addressing MUSA there is a list of criteria to be 2 considered to determine if MUSA will be allocated. She asked what would happen if MUSA was not 3 available. City Planner Smyser indicated that number 8 in this list indicated that the area of MUSA 4 allocation must be consistent with the growth management policy established by the Lino Lakes 5 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the growth management policy states that there is a limited about 6 of MUSA available and when it is gone, that is it. 7 8 Councilmember Carlson read the first paragraph of Section 1003.3, which says: 9 The Community Development Department shall review the concept plan and shall determine if 10 the project crosses any mandatory thresholds for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet 11 (EAW), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or Alternative Urban Area -Wide Review 12 (AUAR) pursuant to Minnesota Rules. If such documents are required, the Community 13 Development Department shall notify the developer of the requirement. 14 She asked what happens if the mandatory threshold is not crossed. 15 16 City Planner Smyser stated it is always important to review. He indicated what would typically 17 happen would be a petition to have an EAW done anyway. He stated the Council always has the 18 option to look at the situation and ask for an EAW. For a discretionary EAW the applicant would 19 volunteer to have done or the Council could ask for it. This situation would not be very common. 20 21 Councilmember Carlson gave an example using Highway 49. She indicated there may have been an 22 Environmental Impact Statement and she is aware there was some historical preservation research 23 that took place. Now the bridge is finally freezing over. If the County was willing to do an EAW and S 24 the results come in and Council wants to do an EIS, could Council decide to do that on their own or is 25 a citizen petition required or even accepted at that point. City Planner Smyser stated it would 26 probably be out of their hands at that point. He indicated that under the law the highest level of 27 government is responsible. If it is a County project, the County does it. He indicated a typical 28 situation would be to do an EAW under state law and an EIS under county law. 29 30 Councilmember Carlson asked what happened in instances where the City is the highest level of 31 government. City Planner Smyser indicated they have faced this. If they receive public comments 32 they have a responsibility to address them. Staff brings the information to the City Council with a 33 recommendation if an EIS is necessary or not. 34 35 Councilmember Carlson asked if it is Council decision that an EIS is necessary, is it staff decision 36 that it crossed the mandatory threshold. City Planner Smyser indicated the threshold is in the 37 handbook. 38 39 Councilmember Carlson asked about final approval or denial. She indicated that with Stonybrook 40 they approved lots for 2002 and 2003. She asked how effective it was to divide the project or if this 41 is covered in the developer's agreement. City Planner Smyser indicated they have to come in for final 42 approval within one year of preliminary approval. He stated final plats in phasing plans will not work 43 quite the same. If the developer got preliminary approval in November, they won't be building then. 44 The plan was for 50 lots in 2002 and 50 in 2003. As long as they build they are final. Some lots will 45 carryover, but if it takes too long the City will be able to ask what is happening. It is very possible 46 they could finalize both sections in 2003, which is okay, it just shifts to a little later. When Staff •47 reviewed the spreadsheet they knew it would not be exact. 48 22