My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-22-1995 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
03-22-1995 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2014 3:07:03 PM
Creation date
2/12/2014 3:04:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
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
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />(Cont'd.) <br />January 31, 1980 <br />Councilman Fahey asked whether the proposed Zoning Ordinance gave the <br />Council the authority to designate an area as a PUD if it so wished. <br />The Planner stated that the Ordinance did give the Council authority <br />to rezone any property it wished. <br />Fahey stated that the City's present Ordinance is more clear in <br />providing the Council this rezoning power. Fahey stated that this <br />proposed Ordinance should have a more detailed procedure set out for <br />initiating a rezoning. <br />The Planner stated that section 921.020 on page 63 set out who can <br />request a rezoning. The Planner stated that the whole procedures <br />section sets out the procedures to follow to rezone a property. <br />A rezoning requires four votes of the Council to pass. However, the <br />proposed Ordinance does not provide that 50% of the neighbors of a <br />property can request the property be rezoned as provided for in the <br />City's present ordinance. <br />Councilman Fahey questions whether section 921.020 was adequate to ensure <br />that someone who doesn't own a property cannot request that that property <br />be rezoned. <br />The Attorney stated that this Ordinance as presently worded would have <br />to be interpreted for someone who would read the Ordinance to find out <br />what the City's rezoning procedures are. <br />Fahey suggested that 921.020 be cross - referenced with section 921.010. <br />Fahey also suggested that <br />PROCEDURE saying that the <br />or requests for rezoning. <br />be added somewhere in the <br />read "921. ADMINISTRATION <br />USE PERMITS. <br />a new paragraph be added under 921.010 <br />word amendment as used herein includes applications <br />Fahey suggested also that the word "rezoning" <br />921. title. Fahey suggested the title could <br />- AMENDMENTS (INCLUDING REZONINGS) AND CONDITIONAL <br />It was also suggested that under Section 921.020 the last phrase "so as <br />to affect the said real estate" be changed to read "so as to affect his <br />own real estate ". <br />Fahey questioned whether the City wants citizens to have the right to <br />amend this ordinance as provided for in Section 921.020. The Attorney <br />stated that citizens would have this right anyway. <br />Councilwoman Scalze stated that under section 923.040 on page 75 <br />the Ordinance requires an application conference for the processing <br />of a PUD with the Zoning Administrator. Since the City presently <br />does not have a Zoning Administrator, Council discussed possibly <br />providing that this application conference be held with the City Clerk <br />as the City Clerk would be able to inform the applicant for a PUD <br />what is required by the Ordinance for this application. <br />Page 61 <br />Page -5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.