My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/22/2003 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2003
>
01/22/2003 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2014 9:55:26 AM
Creation date
4/16/2014 9:55:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
01/22/2003
P&Z Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />January 22, 2003 <br />Page 3 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Page 2-29, a paragraph will be added stati ng that appeals were available through the <br />process described in section 2. <br />Mr. Corson asked if it was a relatively sm all application, was th ere any possibility of <br />having a maximum fee in order not to discourage the homeowner from making an <br />application. Mr. Smyser replied a small a pplication does now have a small fee. He <br />stated the fee was $250.00 for a variance or a minor subdivisi on, and if that amount were <br />not completely used, it would be refunded to the homeowner. <br />Page 2-33, subdivision 6, with respect to Me tes and Bounds Conveyances was deleted. <br />Page 2-36, added that the Community Deve lopment Director shall be the Zoning <br />Administrator. <br />Page 2-39, the main part of the PUD changed. Under the current ordinance a PUD is <br />treated as a rezoning. What was being propos ed was that a PUD would be a conditional <br />use within each zoning district, in most cases. He noted this would simplify the PUD. A <br />mixed use PUD project will require a special rezoning. <br />Page 2-43, paragraph C, deals with rural resi dential development without City sewer and <br />water. He noted under this process lots woul d be allowed to be smaller than the standard <br />for a rural area, as long as open space was preserved. <br />Page 2-47, a clause would be a dded that in a rural cluster development they would allow <br />the possibility of having a common septic system. However, it must be in agreement that <br />if it was not maintained properly, the City can fix it and assess the property owners. <br />Page 2-47, paragraph 2, urban residential PUD shall be applied only within the City’s R- <br />2, R-3 and 4-2 Zoning Districts. He noted this was discussed at length at the Task Force <br />to deal with clustering single-family ho mes. A new R-EC zone is proposed for <br />clustering. <br />Page 2-50, the process for PUD would in gene ral follow the platting process. He noted <br />the language would be changed some noting that the concept plan was voluntary. He <br />noted the density of the PUD must comp ly with the land use category in the <br />Comprehensive Plan and the purpose was to preserve open space. <br />Mr. Corson asked how the density was calculat ed. Mr. Smyser replied it was calculated <br />by the delineated wetland being subtracte d. He noted this would need further <br />clarification. <br />Mr. Corson asked if they expected anything fr om the Land Trust, other than the perpetual <br />easement. Mr. Smyser replied that typical ly when the Land Trust took on an easement, <br />there was a legal document recorded that stated the Land Trust takes on the easement <br />responsibility, and would be responsible to m onitor it on a regular basis. However, the <br />landowner is responsible for what occurs on the land. He noted not all open space would <br />be set up with the Land Trust. He stated some open land may be donated to the City.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.