My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/12/1995 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
1995
>
06/12/1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2017 10:52:23 AM
Creation date
7/7/2017 1:34:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
06/12/1995
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
214
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
CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 25, 1994 <br />Brixius has completed an analysis of Mr. Birch's proposal which <br />indicates that there can be no absolute guarantee that four (4) <br />lots meeting the zoning requirements could be realized. <br />Mr. Radio said he could not guarantee the City Council that the <br />City would win the appeal. However, the City did win in district <br />court. He said he felt compelled to discuss the latest overture <br />from Mr. Birch with the City Council. <br />Mr. Brixius briefly went through the analysis of the Birch <br />property and explained that there are two (2) options for <br />development of the land. The first option would be to simply <br />divide the property into four (4) lots and then make a <br />determination if the four (4) lots meet all zoning and wetland <br />regulations. The second option would be to rezone the property <br />to PDO. This would allow for further development options but <br />would still limit the number of lots to four (4). In either <br />case, the subdivision would be required to meet all regulations <br />and be required to submit a wetlands delineation. <br />Mr. Radio explained that at this time the City Council has three <br />(3) options as follows: <br />1) Say no to Mr. Birch's overture for settlement and let the <br />Eight District Court of Appeals make its decision. <br />2) Say to Mr. Birch here are four (4) building permits and we <br />will work out the details later. <br />Tell Mr. Birch that he should go through the process of <br />submitting applications and the City will decide whether or <br />not the subdivision meets all ordinance and wetland <br />regulations. <br />Mr. Brixius explained that Mr. Birch can file an application for <br />subdivision without further court action. However, the <br />subdivision will be required to demonstrate compliance with all <br />City regulations. In this case the City would be just following <br />the current City ordinances. <br />Mr. Schumacher noted that Mr. Birch has never trusted the City <br />Council and he may think that if he can get four (4) building <br />permits, he has won and is getting his way. Mr. Brixius <br />explained that the building permits should not be given <br />unconditionally. Mr. Radio explained that if Mr. Birch follows <br />the application process, he is only getting what he has a right <br />to at this time. <br />Mayor Reinert asked from a legal standpoint, what is Mr. Birch <br />planning. Mr. Hawkins said Mr. Birch does not trust the City <br />PAGE 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.