My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/08/2000 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2000
>
03/08/2000 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2014 12:57:57 PM
Creation date
7/15/2014 10:19:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
03/08/2000
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.
/
9
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 appli <br />Mr Smyser reported the City charges $650 for the a <br />to cover staff time, and this is sometimes inadequat <br />working on this item since October, 1999. <br />explained the fee goes <br />ed that staff had been <br />Mr. Rafferty asked the developer how the > - got ons worked with the other 12 property <br />owners if Dorothy Kvitek would not t " .fro. ty. <br />Mr. VonBische said the 13 pro <br />struck an agreement with the <br />Mr. VonBische said he has_t <br />would sell. <br />o not like each other, and Dorothy Kvitek <br />k a reduction so she could stay on the property. <br />rothy Kvitek that she could live on the property if she <br />Mr. Johnson mad ' O to table the Preliminary Plat for Bluebill Ponds for 60 <br />days conditional u plicant being in agreement with the extension. If the <br />applicant was not a _ eable to the extension, Mr. Johnson would move to deny the <br />application, and was ` pported 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 />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.