My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/9/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
1/9/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:51 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:18:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/09/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
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
COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT WE ARE HERE TALKING <br />ABOUT AN APPEAL OF A SITE PLAN AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE SITE <br />PLAN; WE HAVE ONLY TALKED ABOUT THE REASON IT WAS DENIED. HE FELT IF <br />WE ARE ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON AN APPEAL OF A SITE PLAN, <br />WE SHOULD ADDRESS THE SITE PLAN AND EITHER APPROVE IT OR DENY IT. <br />HE STATED THAT HE CERTAINLY IS NOT GOING TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN <br />AND REALLY DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER THE APPLICANT WANTS TO CONTINUE. <br />ARCHITECT JOHN CALMES INQUIRED ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF <br />THE DENIAL OF AN APPEAL AND WHETHER THERE IS A TIME PERIOD BEFORE <br />THIS COULD BE BROUGHT UP AGAIN BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. <br />ATTORNEY BLOCK FELT IF THEY WITHDRAW THE APPEAL, THEY HAVE <br />TO START ALL OVER AGAIN, BUT ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THEY HAVE <br />TO FILE WITHIN 20 DAYS, BUT BELIEVED THE BOARD CAN SET ANOTHER TIME <br />AND THERE COULD BE A WITHDRAWAL WITH A STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT <br />HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL IT UP AGAIN. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER <br />WODTKE WITHDREW HIS SECOND. <br />ATTORNEY BLOCK AGREED THAT THEY WOULD WITHDRAW THE APPEAL <br />AT THIS TIME BASED ON A STIPULATION THAT THEY DO NOT GIVE UP ANY <br />RIGHTS ON THE APPEAL. HE NOTED THAT THEY MET THE TIME ELEMENTS SET <br />ON THE APPEAL PROCEDURE. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMIS - <br />STONER WODTKE, TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL BY MR. SCHINDLER <br />BASED ON THE STIPULATION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. <br />MRS. OTA BOYLES, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE <br />OF THE INTERSECTION OF 6TH AVENUE AND U.S. 1, INFORMED THE BOARD <br />THAT HER TRIANGULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS PART OF 27 ACRES ORIGINALLY <br />HOMESTEADED FROM THE STATE. *SHE NOTED THAT THE TRIANGLE WAS CREATED <br />BY THE STATE WHEN THEY WIDENED U.S. 1. MRS. BOYLES THEN WENT INTO <br />A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY LINES, SECTION LINES, RIGHTS-OF- <br />WAY, ETC., AS RELATING TO U. S. I AND CLAIMED THAT IN ORDER TO <br />ACCOMMODATE KENNEDY'S SIGN, U.S. 1 WAS SHIFTED 12' TO THE WEST. <br />SHE FELT IF THEY PUT THE ROAD WHERE IT BELONGED, IT WOULD SOLVE THE <br />WHOLE PROBLEM. <br />JAN .91980 91 °+5Ii7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.