Laserfiche WebLink
Monthly Status Report <br /> <br />Frolik <br /> <br />Frolik/ <br />Pending <br /> <br />9/23/99 <br /> <br />More discussion: Mr, Scheib replied that a PUD would be <br />required. He suggested that the Council talk with City Attorney <br />Goodrich and a Land Use Attorney to discuss the loop holes of the <br />plan and try to close them. Without testing a plan they will not <br />know if there are loopholes or not. He stated that he will get some <br />example case laws for Council to. review. Councilmember <br />Hendriksen questioned if Brad felt that based on the discussion he <br />could make some changes to close some of the loopholes. Mr. <br />Scheib replied that he could make changes to criteria #2 and #6 <br />and if they are the only concerns then he feels they can close the <br />loop holes, but noted that he needs to have consensus of all of the <br />Council, Councilmember Connolly stated that a transition <br />requirement between developments is very important. Mr. Scheib <br />questioned if the plan reflects the importance. Councilmember <br />Connolly replied that in her opinion the plan is not specific <br />enough. <br /> <br />9/21/99 <br /> <br />During the discussion of vacating certain drainage and utility <br />easements in" Northfork Oaks 2''a Addition - Burnham - <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that she is concerned over legal <br />issues, and the fact that a lot combination could be done without <br />the involvement of the City. Councilmember Hendriksen noted <br />that the City does have a subdivision ordinance that 9would not <br />allow a lot split to be done without the involvement of the City. <br />Councilmember Zimmerman suggested requiring Council <br />approval for any lot combination in the future. Consensus was to <br />have the Planning Commission review this issue. <br /> <br /> <br />