My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/14/2002 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2002
>
08/14/2002 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2014 10:38:25 AM
Creation date
2/13/2014 10:38:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
08/14/2002
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.
/
39
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 35 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Setbacks must be shown for each lot on the plat drawing. (1007.3, par. 8) <br />Minimum 10’ buffer around all wetlands, and buildable lot area cannot include this <br />buffer. (1007.3, par 9) <br />Conservation subdivision open space categories and ownership requirements are listed. <br />Conservation subdivision design is not mandato ry. If this option is chosen by the <br />developer, ownership and management of the open space must be addressed. <br />A joint trench requirement for utilities has b een added. This has been the City’s practice, <br />but it has not been formally adopted by ordinance. (1007.9 – 1007.10) <br />Park Dedication:The City adopted new pa rk dedication requirements last year. <br />These have been included in the new subdivi sion ordinance. No changes were made. <br />Improvements:Section 1010 lists elements of a new development that must be <br />installed, and mandates certain on es as the developer’s responsib ility. In the event a rural <br />clustering application comes in, this sect ion includes provisions for a communal septic <br />system (p. 1010.2). The new development agreement requirements include a final <br />grading survey to ensure that the grad ing plan was implemented by the developer. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he was in agreement with the 80 percent completion to encourage the <br />developers to finish the development. He stated with these guid elines would force the <br />developers to complete the site. He stated the developers needed to be contained and <br />forced to uphold their promises they ma de to the City and the residents. <br />Chair Schaps agreed this woul d be good incentive for a developer <br /> <br />Mr. Lyden asked whose job would it be to keep track of all of this. Mr. Smyser replied <br />they did have software to do this, which was not available in the past. <br />Ms. Lane stated she understood the 80 percen t completion, but they may want to also <br />consider stating it by the number of unsol d lots and not only in a percentage. <br />Mr. Smyser added a condition to the prelimin ary plat requirements “16. Ordinary high <br />water level of protected waters and the de lineated wetland boundaries”. Paragraph 6 on <br />page 5, to add words, “including the normal water level and high water level of all ponds <br />and water courses”. He stated they were proposing the Final Plat comes to the Planning <br />and Zoning Board, as well as the Council. He stated no work would begin until Final <br />Plat approval. He stated another change is that minor subdivisions would be approved by <br />staff and if staff did not a pprove the minor subdivision, the applicant could appeal it and <br />it would come before the City Council. He asked how the Board felt about staff handling <br />minor subdivisions and should variances and ap peals go to P&Z and then Council, or just <br />go to Council. <br />The Board agreed to let staff handle the mi nor subdivisions the variances and appeals <br />should go to P&Z and then Council.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.