My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/11/2002 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2002
>
09/11/2002 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2014 3:36:22 PM
Creation date
6/6/2014 12:10:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
09/11/2002
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.
/
80
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
• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 34 <br />that page. On page 1004.5, paragraph 6. should include the normal water level and high <br />water level of all stormwater ponds, wetlands, lakes, etc. <br />Final Plat: Requirements include bringing final plats through the Planning & Zoning <br />Board as well as the City Council. Because of the importance of the phasing plans, staff <br />thought it a good idea to have the P & Z aware of how the growth management system is <br />working. <br />On page 1005.5, a reiteration of the percentage of completion issue occurs. We will <br />amend this to match the statement in the preliminary plat section after P & Z discussion. <br />Minor Subdivisions: An important change from our current procedures is that the draft <br />ordinance states that minor subdivisions would be r administratively, rather than <br />ded to reduce the time and <br />go through the P & Z and City Council. This c <br />expense —for the applicant and the City —for <br />for lot dimensions, wastewater treatment and <br />clear whether or not a proposed lot split meets <br />meets the requirements, it should be approved <br />the opportunity to request a variance from <br />A variance or appeal would then go thro <br />ith clear requirements <br />sties i nd nimums, etc., it is <br />irements the application <br />lay. Applicants always have <br />appeal the staff decision. <br />Council. <br />Please note a correction to be made on 1 aph 1 should end at <br />"...Sections 1004 and 1005 of this aph 2. should begin there, and say: <br />The exchange of abutting land en owne <br />line between two abutting, exist er, .� els of property. <br />`ugh the relocation of the boundary <br />Paragraph 3. m <br />somebody wo. <br />three lots or- <br />enough that <br />undesirable prole <br />parcels, then wants tin <br />This scenario would be <br />problem. However, the fiv <br />The task force had a concern that <br />g property by using repeated minor subdivisions of <br />& Z discussion is whether or not this is likely <br />a resubdivision within five years. It might be an <br />ple, somebody splits 40 acres into two 20 -acre <br />"them a couple years later into two 10 -acre parcels. <br />of size requirements, and would not in and of itself be a <br />ear prohibition would prevent it. <br />Design Standards: There are a number of design requirements that are not listed in the <br />existing ordinance. <br />Land in electricity transmission or pipeline easements cannot be used to fulfill the <br />minimum buildable land requirement for a lot. (page 1007.2) <br />Clarification that every new lot must have the minimum lot width fronting on a public <br />street. (page 19007.2, paragraphs 4. and 5.) <br />Access management requirements for access to collectors and arterials. (page 1007.2, <br />paragraphs 6. and 7.) Paragraph 6. should be amended to say "...major collector street... ". <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.