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 />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 35 <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 mandatory. 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 been 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 park d <br />equirements last year. <br />These have been included in the . new subdivision ord an No changes were made. <br />Improvements: Section 1010 lists ele <br />installed, and mandates certain ones as the dev <br />ew deve, t that must be <br />esponsib ' In the event a rural <br />visions for communal septic <br />clustering application comes in, this section inc <br />system (p. 1010.2). The new development agreement` _ ents include a final <br />grading survey to ensure that the gradingyppmplemeed by the developer. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he was in agreemen th 8 =nt completion to encourage the <br />developers to finish the developm H stater wi ese guidelines would force the <br />developers to complete the site. the` ers needed to be contained and <br />forced to uphold their promise ;.made to the- y and the residents. <br />Chair Schaps agree <br />Mr. Lyden ask° <br />they did have <br />Ms. Lane stated slae <br />consider stating it by <br />centive for a developer <br />it be to`keep track of all of this. Mr. Smyser replied <br />ich was not available in the past. <br />80 percent completion, but they may want to also <br />f unsold lots and not only in a percentage. <br />Mr. Smyser added a condit n to the preliminary plat requirements "16. Ordinary high <br />water level of protected waters and the delineated 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 approve 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 appeals go to P &Z and then Council, or just <br />go to Council. <br />The Board agreed to let staff handle the minor subdivisions the variances and appeals <br />should go to P &Z and then Council. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.