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
Council Member Capra questioned whether the business needed a Speciai Use Permit to <br /> continue its operation. City Attorney Hoeft explained the Special Use Permit was <br /> brought up as a way to allow the current owner to somehow expand or intensify the <br /> business. The City would be able to better control the operation through the special use <br /> permit process. If the business continues to operate as it currently does, there is no need <br /> for a Special Use Permit. <br /> Mayor Swedberg questioned whether intensification of the business could happen <br /> without involving the building. City Attorney Hoeft indicated there may be a possibiiity <br /> of this happening; however it would require investigation to determine whether it was an <br /> expansion or intensification. <br /> Mayor Swedberg questioned whether the Rice Creek Watershed District would be <br /> interested in purchasing the floodway property. Mr. March indicated he did not believe <br /> they would. Mayor Swedberg directed Staff to contact Rice Creek Watershed District to <br /> ascertain if they would be interested in purchasing same. <br /> Mr. Hoeft explained the City's Comprehensive Plan does take precedence over the City's <br /> zoning plan. This is a change as it used to be the zoning plan took precedence over the <br /> Comprehensive Plan and the plan went along for the ride. If the Comprehensive Plan <br /> denotes the property as Commercial, it does so because a commercial use for that � <br /> properiy is a better buffer between the Residential area and the intensified roadway. ' <br /> Council does need to follow the Comprehensive Plan in this instance. The <br /> Comprehensive Plan may be amended at any time if Council deems it appropriate; � <br /> however, it will need to be followed. Mr. Hoeft cautioned Council against spot zoning � <br /> this pzece of property. ' <br /> Council Member Travis stated the current business owner does not do a considerable � <br /> amount of business out of the building, but previously there had been more activity at the <br /> location. He questioned how the City would determine an intensification and what that is <br /> based on. <br /> Mr. Hoeft stated that the City would need to look back historically to the point where <br /> controls making the use non-conforming were put in place and the level of the activity at <br /> that point would be the maximum use for the property. <br /> 2. Lloyd Drilling — Site Plan <br /> Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated Mr. Drilling would like direction from <br /> Council as to what Council would like to see on the final site plan. Council Member <br /> Broussard Vickers stated she would like the berm to come out as far as the Anoka County <br /> will allow, she would like the berm to be four (4) feet high with at least a six (6) foot high <br /> fence on top, she would like to see a specific plan for how the northwest corner of the <br /> property will be landscaped. The developer's agreement will need to specify standards <br /> for the trailway. Mr. Drilling questioned whether the standards for the trailway complied <br /> with City code. Mr. March indicated he would provide Mr. Drilling with the Anoka <br /> County trailway specifications. <br /> Page 11 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.