2000-12-05 P &Z Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner DeVine encouraged Ground Development to come back before the Commission with an R-2 development plan. Mr. Hannah questioned whether he would need to file a new application and pay the required fee. Mr. March concurred. Mr. Cooper questioned whether the Commission could give the developer an indication of whether a plan for R-2 zoning would be approved. Chairperson Hanson stated that a review of revised plans, a public hearing, remedies to previous requests and commission's approval needed to be granted and felt that it was inappropriate to speculate their decision prior to the above process. Mr. Cooper stated that it was his understanding that changing to R-2 zoning would eliminate four lots but everything else would remain the same. Mr. Cooper also stated that Ground Development would like to get a feel for whether the plan would be approved with R-2 zoning. Chairperson Hanson stated that in his opinion a plan with R-2 zoning had a better chance for approval than the PUD plans submitted. Commissioner DeVine questioned whether Mr. March could point out any differences between the PUD plan and R-2 zoning. Mr. March stated that he would need to see the plan but said the minimum lot size width and depth would be larger. Mr. March stated that the Comprehensive Plan called for a low to medium density development therefore, R-2 and R-5 zoning are in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the Ground Development's plan assumes the MUSA line swap will be approved. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that any plan approved by the City would be contingent upon receiving approval of the MUSA line swap. Mr. March stated that it is unrealistic to assume that all approvals required for the development could be obtained by December 15, 2000. Chairperson Hanson told Ground Development that the City appreciated his show of good faith in addressing all the issues raised by the City and residents. Motion by Commissioner Brainard. seconded by Commissioner Killian to deny approval of the Ground Development Preliminary Plat - PUD. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers thanked members of the audience for their input regarding this issue. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that the City has a Comprehensive Plan for development and the school district has had and is aware of. The development discussed fits within the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Centerville could stop development, but neighboring communities such as Lino Lakes are not required to do so. Therefore, the City of Lino Lakes could continue to develop and send children to Centerville schools. The City of Centerville is a developing community and legally the City cannot stop the development from coming in unless it has just cause.