Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II'" <br /> <br />City of CenterviJIe <br />Planning & Zoning Commission <br />November 14,2000 <br /> <br />Mr. Schlavin stated that he is researching various avenues for his property, including <br />obtaining a variance for a larger sign and possibly moving out of the residence and <br />converting the building to a commercial use, allowing him to rent out part of the space. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson invited Mr. Schlavin to the work session on Tuesday, November 21, <br />2000, at 6:30 p.m. <br /> <br />2. Ground Development PUD <br /> <br />Commissioner McLean stated that Ground Development had done a good job of <br />addressing the concerns of the City and residents with the revised plan. Commissioner <br />McLean also stated that whether or not this development is approved, there would be a <br />development on that property at some point. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the Issue is whether the plan of the, <br />developer meets the requirements of a PUD. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brainard stated that since the plan of the developer did not meet the <br />requirements of the PUD, the Commission had no choice but to deny their request. <br /> <br />Commissioner De Vine encouraged Ground Development to come back before the <br />Commission with an R-2 development plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Hannah questioned whether he would need to file a new application and pay the <br />required fee. Mr. March concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Cooper questioned whether the Commission could give the developer an indication <br />of whether a plan for R-2 zoning would be approved. Chairperson Hanson stated that a <br />review of revised plans, a public hearing, remedies to previous requests and <br />commission's approval needed to be granted and felt that it was inappropriate to <br />speculate their decision prior to the above process. <br /> <br />Mr. Cooper stated that it was his understanding that changing to R-2 zoning would <br />eliminate four lots but everything else would remain the same. Mr. Cooper also stated <br />that Ground Development would like to get a feel for whether the plan would be <br />approved with R-2 zoning. Chairperson Hanson stated that in his opinion a plan with R-2 <br />zoning had a better chance for approval than the PUD plans submitted. <br /> <br />Commissioner DeVine questioned whether Mr. March could point out any differences <br />between the PUD plan and R-2 zoning. Mr. March stated that he would need to see the <br />plan but said the minimum lot size width and depth would be larger. Mr. March stated <br />that the Comprehensive Plan called for a low to medium density development therefore, <br />R-2 and R-5 zoning are in line with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the Ground Development's plan assumes <br />the MUSA line swap will be approved. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that <br />any plan approved by the City would be contingent upon receiving approval of the <br />MUSA line swap. <br /> <br />Page 8 of 10 <br />