My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001-02-07 Agenda Packet
Centerville
>
Committees
>
Parks & Rec.
>
Agenda Packets
>
1997-2022
>
2001
>
2001-02-07 Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2010 12:10:22 PM
Creation date
4/27/2010 12:10:03 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
164
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
nonconforming and, therefore, the use cannot be intensified. The business can maintain <br /> the building but not improve or enhance it. <br /> Mr. Don Moe, 7040 Brian Court, stated he had addressed the Planning and Zoning <br /> Commission stating he felt the City is obligated to follow the Comprehensive Plan for <br /> this piece of property. Mr. Moe strongly objects to industrial rezoning because of the � <br /> ecological issues the floodway presents and, in the event of a rezone, the loss of control if ' <br /> in the future the current business decides to sell and a more disruptive business comes in. <br /> He understands Mrs. Stevens wishes to make money by selling the property but as a <br /> neighboring resident he does not want industrial properiy in his neighborhood. <br /> Ms. Susan Luke, 7026 Brian Court, questioned if the buildings currently located on the <br /> property comply with industrial zoning regulations. Council Member Broussard Vickers <br /> stated they did not conform to any type of zoning and are classified as nonconforming. If <br /> the zoning were to be modified, there are major issues conceming the floodway that <br /> would govern what could be built on the property. <br /> Mr. Hoeft clarified the buildings are classified as a pre-existing, non-conforming, use <br /> meaning the business cannot expand or intensify its use. <br /> Council Member Capra questioned whether residents have any issues with the building <br /> currently located on the property. Ms. Luke indicated her lot abuts the property but she <br /> looks out and sees the house on the property as a nice buffer between her lot and the pole <br /> building. Ms. Luke indicated her main concern with rezoning the property is all <br /> likelihood the house would be torn down. <br /> Mayor Swedberg asked the other residents in attendance if they had any issues with the <br /> business as is. Mr. Moe indicated he had no problem with the current use of the property. <br /> There may be an issue with the new development to the south with it overlooking the lot <br /> with no natural buffer. <br /> Council Member Nelson stated that she was in favor of a rezone if it was not in the <br /> floodway. <br /> Mayor Swedberg expressed concern for allowing an industrial use of the property that <br /> may jeopardize the wells located downstream from the property. In his opinion, a rezone <br /> was inappropriate. <br /> Motion bv Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member <br /> Nelson to deny the rezone request for 7007 — 20 Avenue from R21 to I1. All in <br /> favor. Motion carried unanimouslv. <br /> Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated the primary objection is to Industrial <br /> zoning not Commercial and it is possible Mrs. Stevens would request a rezone to <br /> commercial. <br /> A member of the audience questioned if Mrs. Stevens requested a rezone to Commercial <br /> would residents get notice of the meeting. Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated <br /> residents would be notified. <br /> Page 10 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.