My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/03/1995 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1995 Park Board Packets
>
04/03/1995 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2021 1:28:25 PM
Creation date
8/6/2021 9:46:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
04/03/1995
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
Park Bd Publication Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
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
CITY OF LINO LAKES <br /> PARK BOARD MEETING <br /> MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1995 <br /> The March 6, 1995, City of Lino Lakes Park Board meeting was <br /> called to order at 6:35pm. <br /> Roll call was taken, members present were George Lindy, Chair, <br /> Sharon Lane, Pam Taschuk, Amy Donlin and Betty Piper. Also <br /> present were Marty Asleson, Park, Recreation, and Forestry <br /> Coordinator, Barry Bernstein, Recreation Program Supervisor, and <br /> Sandie Wood, Recording Secretary. Absent were Ken Johnson and <br /> Joe Schmidt. <br /> APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 6, 1995 MINUTES: Sharon Lane made a motion <br /> to approve the February 6, 1995 minutes, Amy Donlin seconded the <br /> motion. Minutes were approved with no additions or corrections. <br /> OPEN MIKE: There was no one present to speak under Open Mike. <br /> IMPACT FEES: Marty explained that impact fees were brought up <br /> at the last meeting. John Powell had attended a conference and <br /> Marty read general comments that John had sent to him by memo. <br /> Marty said we would have no legal basis for imposing impact fees <br /> and would definetly be challenged. Amy wanted to know if this <br /> was because of the Dolan decision. Marty responded that was one <br /> case study but there were others that had been tried on <br /> "reasonable portion" and "reasonable relationship" . He said the <br /> law was intended to provide for open space in developments on the <br /> basis of a new subdivision being created. <br /> He went on to discuss commercial/industrial dedication <br /> requirements that are in the cities ordinance. He said there is <br /> nothing documented to show "reasonable portion" and "reasonable <br /> relationship" between commercial development and recreational <br /> use. Sharon had questions on commercial development dedication. <br /> Marty said it was based on square footage of a commercial <br /> building. Sharon asked, if a company expands, do they have to <br /> pay more dedication fees? Marty said yes. <br /> ADA UPDATE: Marty gave background information on what had <br /> transpired with ADA since Becky left. He said Julee Quarve- <br /> Peterson was hired to do a self evaluation. This evaluation <br /> includes facilities, programs and services. Marty said he had <br /> given these manuals to staff to review. John Powell, Pete Kuegel <br /> and Jean Viger reviewed these manuals to critique them. Julee <br /> had a training session, with staff and the ADA Committee, in <br /> February. <br /> He said the transition plan lists facilities on different park <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.