My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001-01-03 Agenda Packet
Centerville
>
Committees
>
Parks & Rec.
>
Agenda Packets
>
1997-2022
>
2001
>
2001-01-03 Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2010 12:16:49 PM
Creation date
4/27/2010 12:16:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
97
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
Commissioner DeVine encouraged Ground Development to come back before the <br /> ' Commission with an R-2 development p1an. <br /> Mr. Hannah questioned whether he would need to file a new application and pay the <br /> required fee. Mr. March concurred. <br /> Mr. Cooper questioned whether the Commission could give the developer an indication <br /> of whether a plan for R-2 zoning wouid 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 /> 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 /> 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 Iarger. 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 /> Mr. March stated that it is unrealistic to assume that all approvals required for the II <br /> development could be obtained by December 15, 2000. <br /> Chairperson Hanson told Ground Development that the Ciry appreciated his show of <br /> good faith in addressing all the issues raised by the City and residents. <br /> Motion by Commissioner Brainard, seconded by Commissioner Killian to den� <br /> �proval of the Ground Development Preliminary Plat — PUD. All in favor. Motion <br /> carried unanimouslv. <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 deveiopment 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.