My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-09-2004 City Council Minutes
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2004
>
11-09-2004 Council Meeting
>
11-09-2004 City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2016 10:13:27 AM
Creation date
7/26/2016 10:13:26 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council Minutes <br /> November 9, 2004 <br /> Page 4 <br /> ------------------------------ <br /> RETENTION AREA SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO PROVIDE <br /> SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE <br /> SITE. <br /> 4. LANDSCAPING PLAN AS NOTED ON CERTIFICATE OF <br /> SURVEY BE PLANTED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF BITUMINOUS <br /> SURFACE BEING INSTALLED. <br /> COUNCIL MEMBER RYAN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION <br /> CARRIED 7-0. <br /> 7.2. Preliminary Plat of Sibley Acres —William Wortham, Kevin Hughes and <br /> Thomas Ressemann <br /> COUNCIL MEMBER RYAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY <br /> PLAT OF SIBLEY ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN HIGHWAY 371 AND <br /> SIBLEY LAKE, 4.2 ACRES IN SIZE, CREATING FOUR RESIDENTIAL <br /> LOTS, BASED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF <br /> FACT AND BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: <br /> 1. A DEED RESTRICTION APPEARS THAT THE POLE BUILDING <br /> WILL BE REMOVED WHEN OAK STREET IS IMPROVED. <br /> 2. THE GAP BE TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE MOVING TO FINAL <br /> PLAT AND NOT AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE. <br /> 3. REZONE THE PARCEL TO RESIDENTIAL PRIOR TO FINAL <br /> PLAT APPLICATION. <br /> COUNCIL MEMBER SJOBLAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION <br /> CARRIED 7-0. <br /> 7.3. Shoreline Alteration Violation <br /> Dawn Bittner provided an update on a shoreline alteration violation. She <br /> noted that the property owner has agreed to a reconstruction plan. She <br /> also indicated that the Planning Commission is recommending that the <br /> property owner be assessed the five times after-the-fact fine for the <br /> violation. Council discussion pursued regarding the fine. It was indicated <br /> that if the property owner is correcting the violation, or if the violation is not <br /> intentional, perhaps the fine is too steep. Dawn Bittner explained that the <br /> property owner can come before the Council to ask for a reduction in the <br /> fine. She also explained that there are many costs involved in a violation. <br /> Bittner also explained that the Planning Commission is recommending the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.