My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/14/2005 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2005
>
09/14/2005 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2014 4:24:38 PM
Creation date
4/7/2014 4:24:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
09/14/2005
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 14, 2005 <br />Page 18 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />amendment is needed to address growth issues as well as changing the land use <br />designation for the site. <br /> <br />Staff anticipates this application will re quire additional consideration beyond this <br />meeting, so a special meeting of the P&Z ha s been arranged for September 27 for further <br />discussion. <br /> <br />Staff reviewed their analysis and recomme nded the Board open the public hearing, take <br />comments, and continue the public heari ng to the special meeting on September 27. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked what was the City gaini ng by allowing this. Mr. Smyser replied on <br />page 7 of his report addressed this item. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated he was concer ned that the language of the text stated it “may include, <br />but not limited to”. He asked if this was opening the door to o wide. Mr. Smyser <br />responded that was a good point and the language might need to be revised. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson believed the intent was to leave it somewhat open and leave it to the City’s <br />discretion and he believed they met the criteria. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated he was not argu ing that this project did not meet the criteria, but he was <br />concerned how this might affect ot her potential developments as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated he was in favor of what he saw and amending the Comprehensive Plan <br />and moving forward with this. He noted he would not be in attend ance at the September <br />27 Special Meeting. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he would like to hear from the audience members and indicated due <br />to the lateness of the hour, he would like to continue staff’s comments to the special <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty invited the pub lic to make comment. <br /> <br />Greg Hayes, developer, showed the Board wh at was changing in the zoning. He asked <br />the Board if they had any questions. He noted they would come back to the Board with <br />the specific site details in the future. He indicated the Board would see a lot more <br />modifications and changes as time progresses. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson asked if they owned the land to the south of the development. Mr. Hayes <br />replied they did not own the land, but they had permission to put in th e road and this fit <br />road fit into Centerville ’s long-range plans. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated in the commercial park way area it talked about a roadway as being <br />24 feet. He asked what the typical parkway type roadway was. He asked if this fell in <br />line with City standards. Mr. Smyser re sponded how these streets would be laid out <br />would be examined as part of the PUD and pl at application, which they were not looking <br />at yet. He indicated they would have to see what happened and the developer was simply
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.