My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-10-03 Packet
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2022
>
2006
>
2006-10-03 Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2007 3:56:27 PM
Creation date
10/3/2006 4:27:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
<br />City of CenterviIle <br />Planning and Zoning Meeting Mintues <br />September 5, 2006 <br /> <br />The Developer indicated that they are in negotiations and not at liberty to discuss their <br />tenant at this time. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson suggested discussing a second access that lines up with the <br />access across the street with Anoka County to see if they would be willing to consider it. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hanzal asked when final plans would be brought to the City for <br />consideration. <br /> <br />The Developer indicated that they would like to be ready to go for next month. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson explained that the CUP would require a public hearing. He <br />then asked for an explanation of the proposed subdivision for the site. <br /> <br />Mr. Barasa explained the subdivision plans and noted it would take legal and survey <br />work to accomplish. <br /> <br />The Commission, Staff and the Developer discussed setting the public hearing for next <br />month. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hanzal indicated that he would be concerned about doing so without <br />further information on the actual height being requested and the setback information. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klennert Hunt indicated that she would like police and fire to review the <br />plan. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District would need to <br />review the plans. He then suggested that the Developer look into whether the entire site <br />was approved with the first phase because that may save time with this portion of the site. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hanzal indicated that he would prefer to wait to schedule the public <br />hearing until all the information is available for review. <br /> <br />The Commission agreed noting that some of the required information was dependent <br />upon other agencies and they may not be able to meet a tight time requirement. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson indicated that Staff would require a proposed plat with the site <br />laid out exactly as proposed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hanzal recommended that the Developer ask Rice Creek whether an <br />administrative approval would be possible for this project rather than full board review. <br /> <br />2. Proposed City Code Language Amendment Chapter 152 (Area Identification <br />Signs) <br /> <br />Page 3 of5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.