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 38 <br />were going to go by the guidelines, then they needed to follow them. He stated he did not <br />believe anyone was trying to insinuate it was anyone's fault, but they are not going to be <br />able to do anything if they are not allowed to move forward. Mr. Lyden replied that there <br />were Ordinances and specifics that needed to be met, and if that was the end of the case <br />and people did not meet specifics, then that would be the end of the discussion. <br />However, there are variances in which someone can ask the Board for other consideration <br />and the Board needs to weight if it is good thing or a bad thing and this is two different <br />things they are talking about. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated if the City wanted to go by guidelines, then they needed to stick with <br />them. <br />Chair Schaps stated they had to continue to update tl, <br />changes in environmental concerns and change <br />concerns had nothing to do with this Ordin <br />beyond their goals, but nobody could predict <br />close the City to people who wanted to live in <br />ces to keep up with the <br />indicated Mr. Lyden's <br />ows the City was <br />d they could not <br />Ms. Lane pointed out that the Ordinance nee even if they did not have <br />a Comprehensive Plan. <br />Mr. Lyden expressed concern about the del a -: " requirement for roads. Mr. <br />Grochala replied "C" was the typict le <br />Mr. Lyden asked if they could omethin: er. <br />at moved traffic sufficiently. <br />Mr. Rafferty point 1;• e an'� ig e . • ads were County Roads and the City had no <br />control over the <br />Mr. Raffer <br />of July 9 dr <br />ommend approval of the draft subdivision ordinance <br />by the July 10 memo. <br />The motion was sup <br />Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden <br />VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS <br />Mr. Lyden asked for an update on the Island project. Mr. Smyser replied Council <br />decided an environmental assessment worksheet must be prepared and they were still <br />working on that with the developers. It had not yet been completed. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if they knew when it would be completed. Mr. Smyser replied the <br />applicant would be submitting additional information to be reviewed by the City. Staff <br />did not know when the information would be submitted and approved. <br />VII. ADJOURNMENT <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.