My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
12/12/2001 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
12/12/2001 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2014 11:43:54 AM
Creation date
7/15/2014 12:01:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
12/12/2001
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.
/
8
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 />December 12, 2001 <br />Page 3 <br />• The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. <br />• <br />Motion carried 6 -0. <br />B. Clyde Rehbein, 580 Marshan Lane, Minor Subdivision <br />Pulled at the request of applicant. <br />C. Moratorium on Residential Development — PUBLIC HEARING <br />Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. <br />Staff explained the comprehensive plan set the policy directs• g wlulee implementation <br />of the plan occurs through official controls such as the sus vi i ord °= ance and zoning <br />ordinance. The new comprehensive plan established a ��aic to s -� °scantly reduce the <br />rate of growth in the city. Staff was setting up a pro s �ry.ame kr� `ng the official <br />controls to implement the plan. This will take some •Mete. Staff explained <br />they were concerned about the interim. After ern _ wi the City Attorney, staff <br />believed it was best to adopt a moratorium to City. The proposed ordinance <br />would prohibit most types of residential vex,, ent activity in the City for one year. <br />Staff presented its analysis by explainin there e three main reasons for the <br />moratorium. First, the City Counc comprehensive plan but was still <br />undergoing review by the Metro „y Co as required by state statute. Until the <br />Met Council approved the plan an awkward position between the old, <br />sketchy plan and the new • a been using the new plan for guidance, but it was <br />not clear how firmly the • tand n it. <br />Second, while the ensi = plan establishes the policy of reducing growth to an <br />average of 147 •er ye. e current official controls do not provide the means to ensure <br />implementatio � •o �_ y. The City should be in the position where if it wants to <br />deny new devel . ” e : pplications, it should have clear and easily defensible reasons. <br />Third, staff antici Fated new plat, rezoning, and MUSA reserve applications in the very <br />near future. Revising the ordinances would be a major undertaking. They would have <br />the services of our planning consultant, but the project would require significant effort by <br />staff as well. The moratorium would allow staff to devote time to the ordinance project <br />rather than attempting to review new application using ordinances that may or may not <br />support the comprehensive plan. <br />Staff reviewed what types of applications would not be affected by the moratorium and <br />the process used for this moratorium. <br />Chair Schaps asked where in the process the Comprehensive Plan was with the <br />Metropolitan Council. Mr. Smyser replied he was not sure where they were with the <br />Plan, but they were reviewing it. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.