My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/20/1980 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
1980
>
08/20/1980 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2014 3:10:14 PM
Creation date
7/21/2014 1:26:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
08/20/1980
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
• <br />Planning and Zoning <br />August 20, 1980 <br />Page Seven <br />•Council and if there is a wrong decision, that is the responsibility of the <br />Council and not of this Board. <br />• <br />There was some discussion on the written opinions of Mr. Locher and Mayor <br />Gourley noted that Mr. Locher had had no objections to the Resolution as <br />passed by the Council. <br />Mr. Hook said he had stated his grounds for a lawsuit - he had not heard <br />any thing from the other side. <br />Mayor Gourley said he was unaware that a public hearing, with legal advisor <br />present, was to be held at this meeting. If he had been aware of this he <br />would have provided legal representation for the City. <br />Mr. Reinert said he would hope they could could continue to hold open meet- <br />ings and listen to concerned citizens - he felt this has always been done. <br />Mayor Gourley said taking testimony from concerned citizens is fine - but <br />holding a public hearing at this point in time is not proper. <br />Mr. Reinert again referred to the letter he had written to Mr. Locher and <br />mentioned the fact that Mayor Gourley had intercepted the letter and it had <br />not been answereed. <br />4-7/4 ;r) <br />Mr. Prokop, memo went over the hearing on Outlot C, that had revoked this <br />special use permit for multi- family dwellings. He is confused on just where <br />this fits into this discussion. <br />Mrs. Schwankl moved to recommend to Council this preliminary plat be approved <br />subject of a public hearing, in as much as the developer had complied with <br />all things requested by the Council. <br />Mr. Hook felt the motion was premature, Mr. Reinert said the motion was in <br />order. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bathke. <br />There was discussion on the acess to the lake. Mr Hook raised this question. <br />He wanted to know how 290 people would get to the lake? Are there to go <br />through the cul -de -sac? Will all 96 persons put docks on this lake? What <br />the State of Minnesota allowto put on that lake for the number of docks? <br />isn't that a legimate question this Board should know before they consider <br />this plat? <br />Mr. Reinert said the surface water use of that lake is a concern of his - from <br />the standpoint of safety in the overpopulation of the use of the lake, <br />Mr. Bathke pointed out that this is not a public hearing and this is not a <br />subject that should be discussed here. <br />M. Hook said that in the matter of the ponding area/there was only an <br />estimate of how many acresecontained in that area he felt that this Board <br />should have documentation as to how much land is contained in that area. <br />IIIMr. Johnson went back to the fact that North St. Paul and many other Cities <br />use the number of bedrooms to compute the density. Mr. Bathke asked Mr. <br />Blackbird what the City Ordinance says about density and Mr. Blackbird said <br />there are no requirements as to density - just a requirement as to the square <br />footage needed for each building. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.