My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/12/2000 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2000
>
04/12/2000 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2014 11:20:19 AM
Creation date
6/30/2014 1:36:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
04/12/2000
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.
/
73
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />March 8, 2000 <br />Page 6 <br />Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:22 p.m., and was supported <br />by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. <br />Mr. Smyser clarified that if the Planning Commission chose to table the item, it would <br />need an agreement from the developer to do so. If the Planning Commission chose to <br />send the item on to the City Council, it needed to make a recommendation. <br />Mr. Johnson asked how long it would be before the applicant could bring back another <br />proprosal if the item was denied. <br />Mr. Smyser stated the City did not have a one year restriction on this application, but the <br />City Council could waive any waiting period if they choose, and the applicant could then <br />reapply if the issues and problems had been addressed, and it would require a new <br />application fee. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked what the application fee is for this application. <br />Mr Smyser reported the City charges $650 for the ap <br />to cover staff time, and this is sometimes inadequ <br />working on this item since October, 1999. <br />ation. He explained the fee goes <br />reported that staff had been <br />• <br />Mr. Rafferty asked the developer how the oti s worked with the other 12 property 0 <br />owners if Dorothy Kvitek would not sell <br />Mr. VonBische said the 13 propert <br />struck an agreement with the trust <br />Mr. VonBische said he has to <br />would sell. <br />not like each other, and Dorothy Kvitek <br />reduction so she could stay on the property. <br />vitek that she could live on the property if she <br />Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to able the Preliminary Plat for Bluebill Ponds for 60 <br />days conditional upon the applicant being in agreement with the extension. If the <br />applicant was not agreeable to the extension, Mr. Johnson would move to deny the <br />application, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. <br />The developer stated he was in agreement to the extension so the item was tabled for 60 <br />days. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.