My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/14/1985 P&Z Agenda & Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
1985
>
08/14/1985 P&Z Agenda & Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2022 9:59:07 AM
Creation date
7/18/2014 9:55:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
08/14/1985
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.
/
8
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
129 <br />wo 1,ANN LNG AND ZONING <br />August 14, 1985 <br />the area. Each lot also meets the ten acre requirement before <br />easements. Items 1 - 3, page 2 of the City Planner's opinion <br />dated 8/7/85 on this subject should also be incorporated within <br />this motion. <br />The motion was seconded by Mr. Prokop and carried unanimously. <br />PLATTING ORDINANCE <br />It has been brought to the attention of the City Council and the <br />Planning and Zoning Board that the platting ordinance currently <br />in force places a hardship on applicants for small plats because <br />of the cost for a survey, which is required before consideration. <br />According to Mr. Kluegel and Mr. Johnson, the average costs of a <br />boundary survey would be approximately $300 -$600, as opposed to <br />a plat survey (which includes topography) costing $1,500 - $2,000. <br />Mr. Johnson noted that the Council wants to continue to have the <br />P 8 Z Board review all subdivisions and make recommendations as <br />to approval /disapproval. He also felt that in most instances a <br />topography study, which is the most expensive portion of a complete <br />survey is frequently unnecessary. He felt that from a simple <br />boundary survey, the City Engineer or Building Official could <br />verify the lot sizes from a legal description. <br />Recently Ordinance 04 -85 was adopted dealing with platting and <br />the P 8 Z Board feels that this ordinance is vague and particularly <br />after hearing the hardship it places on applicants, it needs to <br />be changed. A suggestion was made to incorporate some language <br />within a new ordinance which would require a complete survey in- <br />cluding topography, rather than the usual simple boundary survey, <br />only when a Building Officialfeels that the topography of the land <br />could create a drainage problem, etc. <br />Mr. Johnson felt that with this input from the P 8 Z Board and the <br />concerns of the Council, he and the City Attorney could put together <br />a new platting ordinance. <br />MOTION: Mr. Prokop moved that Mr. Johnson be instructed to meet <br />with the City Attorney to review Ordinance 04 -85 dealing with <br />platting and recording of conveyances and that such review be <br />conducted upon the approval of the City Council and results be <br />returned to the P 8 Z for discussion. <br />Motion seconded by Mrs. Klaus, and carried unanimously. <br />STEVE BAILEY - METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION <br />While reviewing the survey submitted by Mr. Bailey, the Board found <br />that the surveyor had made an error on the placement of the ditch <br />which runs through the property in question and also acreage was <br />not noted on the survey. Mr. Kluegel was asked to contact the <br />surveyor and ask for a resubmission from the surveyor, at no <br />additional cost to the applicant, before the Council considers <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.