HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1977-263• CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a, regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was WeTJ on the
_h_ days , 19. The following members were
10 resent: Mayor e, ou`ncilmen Ne s, Seibold and Spaeth
The following members were absent:oC unc`i'Tman munv--
Capncillgan Spaeth introduced the following Resolution and moved
is on:
RESOLUTION #77- 263
DENYING CONCEPT PLAN FOR CENTURION COMPANY FOR "CIMARRON PONDS WEST" RPUD 77-2 (A-196)
WHEREAS, Centurion Company has requested concept plan approval of Cimarron Ponds West,
located at the southeast corner of Dunkirk Lane and County Road 6 consisting of 29
single family lots and 36 patio home attached units;
AND, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request and made recommendations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should, and hereby does, deny the request of Centurion Company for
concept plan approval of Cimarron Ponds West, located at the southeast corner of Dunkirk
Lane and County Road 6 consisting of 29 single family lots and 36 patio home attached
units based on the following findings:
1. The proposed access to a portion of the site via 10th Avenue North and Comstock
10Lane would substantially exceed the 500 ft. maximum specified by City Ordinance
and, therefore, constitute a potential health and safety hazard to residents of a
portion of the development.
2. The Concept Plan proposes construction of homes within the 100 -year flood plain
of Gleason Lake. Such a development concept is contrary to the ". . .preservation
and enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics. . ." attribute expected
of a Residential Planned Unit Development per Section 20, Subdivision 3, paragraph
Id of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The concept plan proposes alteration of the creek flowing into Gleason Lake,
also contrary to Section 20, Subdivision 3, paragraph Id of the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilman Neils , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
fol owing voted in favor thereof: Councilmen Neils, Seibold
- avaavwaJ,K X1P7F7FTe(J99F*AJWXW RDSralnea:
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly
AAR A**
**R