My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/11/1972 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
1972
>
10/11/1972 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/1/2022 4:11:41 PM
Creation date
6/1/2022 4:09:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
10/11/1972
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Tree <br />4r. Hill felt we should ask for a total comprehensive plan as it <br />regarded whole area, including green spaces. Mr. Van Nousen noted <br />that we asked for a total plan about a year ago end all we got was <br />a block plan. Mr. Hill felt there was no real park area for kids - <br />they'll be in the street. <br />Mr. McLean advised everyone that this was not legal hearing because <br />it wasn't posted and published. <br />Mr. I1arier asked about the timinu on additional Laterals off of Lantern <br />and Bleck Duck, and how many feet of pipes will be necessary for t`u: <br />additional letcrals. <br />Mr. Bush said that as soon as they get approval they'll put the models <br />up. Possessions should b' next summer. There are 180 sites, but the <br />initial soles will be neer the existing pipes. <br />Mr, Marie:. noted that the Council passed on their Plan 2 and we have <br />money invea.4ed that we haven't gotten anything out of. Ivlr. Meyer <br />figured that the total feet of pipes needed would be about 7,000, at <br />about $4.00 to $5.00 per foot. <br />One resident asked what guarantee they have that there won't be loan <br />cost homes put in there. Mr. McLean and Mt, Locher told him there are <br />no cost requirements in the Village, just footage requirements. The <br />state code is set up to allow state housing anywhere in the state. Our <br />building code gives more protection. <br />Mr. Van Housen said he sew a like buffer none in California and it was <br />very nice, He did feel it should be fully dedicated. He didn't feel <br />the R5 should be left in existence, and that they delete those few <br />lots across from the park as he commented on in his letter. He also <br />noted that there is no way to keep pe,;ple out of a public park end this <br />is one reason for keeping it small and nonrecreational in scope. He <br />asked hew much land they owe us now for parks. He felt this should <br />probably be rejected until a total concept is presented. <br />Mr. Busch said #1 - as layout developed they said they would have a <br />lake access contributed to the village and #2 • park area is not <br />required for land not used for habitation (such as golf course). <br />Larry Johnson felt the residents should have a say so, they are <br />the ones who live there and it is intended for their use and they <br />are saying they do not went the buffer none. <br />One lady asked if there was no compromising plan. <br />Mr. Farrend made a recommendation based on his personal opinion. He <br />recommended that the Council reject the proposed platting change on <br />morel grounds as related to misrepresentation. <br />After discussion a second was celled for twice. There was none so <br />the motion is dead. <br />Mr. Shearen moved to recommend the Council table these variance appeals <br />until we receive more dnteiled plot plans as recommended by the Engineer <br />and Planner. They should submit plans regarding the total concept (5.03 <br />and 5.05) and perk system as they plan to develop present and proposed
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.