My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2000-12-05 P &Z Agenda
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2022
>
2000
>
2000-12-05 P &Z Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2009 3:32:50 PM
Creation date
7/17/2009 3:17:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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 />Commissioner DeVine 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 />Mr. March stated that it is unrealistic to assume that all approvals required for the <br />development could be obtained by December 15, 2000. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson told Ground Development that the City appreciated his show of <br />good faith in addressing all the issues raised by the City and residents. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Brainard. seconded by Commissioner Killian to deny <br />approval of the Ground Development Preliminary Plat - PUD. All in favor. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers thanked members of the audience for their input <br />regarding this issue. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the City has a <br />Comprehensive Plan for development and the school district has had and is aware of. <br />The development discussed fits within the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The <br />City of Centerville could stop development, but neighboring communities such as Lino <br />Lakes are not required to do so. Therefore, the City of Lino Lakes could continue to <br />develop and send children to Centerville schools. The City of Centerville is a developing <br />community and legally the City cannot stop the development from coming in unless it has <br />just cause. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.