My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ord Amend Appeal Timeline Discussion
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2015
>
06-18-2015 Planning Commission Meeting
>
Ord Amend Appeal Timeline Discussion
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/21/2016 2:15:08 PM
Creation date
4/21/2016 2:15:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
Pequot Lakes Staff Report 7 (b) - 1 <br />June 18, 2015 <br /> <br /> <br />APPEAL TIMELINE DISCUSSION <br /> <br />Agenda Item: 7 (b) <br /> <br />Background Information: Last month the Planning Commission <br />unanimously voted to recommend the City Council amend the City Code <br />regarding the Appeal Timeframe as proposed. The following took place at the <br />City Council meeting June 2 (draft Council Minutes): <br /> <br />6.2. Ordinance Amendment Regarding Appeal Process <br /> <br /> Dawn Bittner explained that the Planning Commission is recommending <br />an amendment to Chapter 17 of the City Code to change the timeframe to <br />file an appeal of a decision made by the Zoning Administrator or the <br />Planning Commission. The proposed amendment would require an appeal <br />to be filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the decision and the appeal <br />would be heard by either the Planning Commission or City Council within <br />30 days of the original action. <br /> <br /> COUNCIL MEMBER AKERSON MOVED TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE <br />AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING <br />APPEALS PROCESS. COUNCIL MEMBER LOUKOTA SECONDED <br />THE MOTION. <br /> <br /> Council Member Akerson questioned whether the timeframe allowed in <br />the ordinance would be enough if the person making the appeal was <br />required to provide some type of documentation. He noted that there may <br />be instances when the appealer must provide a survey, legal documents, <br />or other types of documentation that takes some time to acquire. He <br />questioned if there is a provision in the ordinance for a time extension. <br /> <br /> The Council suggested that the Planning Commission review the <br />ordinance amendment again and that it consider the possibility of more <br />time needed for the appeal process. <br /> <br /> COUNCIL MEMBER AKERSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCIL <br />MEMBER LOUKOTA WITHDREW THE SECOND. <br /> <br />***** <br /> <br /> <br />Staff contacted neighboring municipalities and the tables below depict their <br />requirements: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.