My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/08/2001 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
08/08/2001 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/4/2014 3:47:55 PM
Creation date
6/3/2014 12:20:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
08/08/2001
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.
/
79
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 />June 13, 2001 <br />Page 9 <br />E. PUBLIC HEARING, Centennial School District, Birch St. Site, Rezone <br />Chair Schaps declared the public hearing for both Item E and Item F opened at 8:00 p.m. <br />Staff presented the application by explaining that ISD 12 requested to locate a new elementary <br />school next to the Centennial Middle School, the School District also hoped to sell its existing <br />vacant property along Birch Street. In this regard, the School District had requested that their <br />38.29 -acre site be rezoned from PSP, Public /Semi -Public District to R -1X, Single Family <br />Executive District. <br />Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the following: <br />Staff explained ISD 12, in evaluating its elementary school needs, determined that a new facility <br />adjoining the existing middle school would best serve its current and., ollment <br />population. The Birch Street site was seen as a duplicate site for Ri entary School <br />and Centerville Elementary School. <br />Staff stated the 38.29 acre site was zoned PSP, Public /Se <br />district was limited in the range of uses that were allowed. <br />range of use was very limiting and in some cases the <br />with the adjoining residential properties (i.e., clinicsrrnursi <br />• Staff explained the applicant was proposing to <br />Executive District. This was a low- densit b <br />Staff indicated in consideration of re <br />amendment should be considered <br />Commission's judgment of the re <br />factors: <br />istrict. This zoning <br />e property for sale, this <br />conducive or compatible <br />es, public buildings, hospitals). <br />property to R -1X, Single Family <br />ial district. <br />, the possible adverse effects of the <br />aking, the City Council and Planning <br />sho ``d be based upon, but not limited to, the following <br />1. The proposed . ction's i tency with the specific policies and provision of the official <br />City Compreh <br />2. The proposed us compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. <br />3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., <br />parking, loading, noise, etc.). <br />4. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, <br />schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. <br />5. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the <br />property. <br />Staff stated while zoned PSP, the 1990 Land Use Plan guides the subject site for single family <br />residential and includes the area in the existing MUSA. The Proposed 2020 Land Use Plan <br />showed the property as public /semi- public, reflecting the public ownership and current zoning. <br />The 2020 plan also included the site in the MUSA and Phase 1 growth area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.