Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />COUNCIL MEETING JULY 13, 1992 <br />Voting on the motion, motion carried unanimously. <br />PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REPORT <br />Consideration of Resolution No. 92 - 79 Expanding City MUSA <br />Boundaries by 46 Acres VIA Trading Acres - Mr. Brown explained <br />that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved by the City <br />Council in March, 1990 and sent to the Metropolitan Council for <br />their review and approval. He displayed a map that indicated <br />what areas had been deleted from the MUSA and what areas had been <br />added to the MUSA. The Metropolitan Council had approved the <br />Amendment but the City Council never formally adopted a <br />resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of <br />Resolution No. 92 - 79 will complete action on this matter. <br />Council Member Elliott moved to adopt Resolution No. 92 - 79 <br />expanding the MUSA by 46 acres. Council Member Bergeson seconded <br />the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 92 - 79 <br />can be found at the end of these minutes. <br />Consideration of Resolution No. 92 - 80 Eliminating the City's <br />Rural Expansion (RE) Land Use Designation and Replacing It With <br />Rural (R) Land Use Designation - Mr. Brown explained that this is <br />another Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was approved by the <br />City Council and the Metropolitan Council but never formally <br />adopted by resolution. Eliminating the ER land use designation <br />and replacing it with Rural means that 2 1/2 lot subdivisions <br />will no longer be granted in this City. Council Member Elliott <br />moved to adopt Resolution No. 92 - 80. Council Member Neal <br />seconded the motion. Council Member Bergeson asked if a 2 1/2 <br />acre lot of record was buildable? Mr. Schneider explained that <br />if the lot was an approve subdivision and recorded by the City <br />Council prior to this date, it would be a buildable lot. Mr. <br />Hawkins explained that if a subdivision had been granted by the <br />City Council and the subdivision not recorded, then the lot would <br />not be buildable. <br />Voting on the motion, motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. <br />92 - 80 can be found at the end of these minutes. <br />Consideration of Granting a Conditional Use Permit, Planning <br />Department No. 92 - 30 to 7080 Lake Drive - The City Council <br />discussed this matter at a Council Work Session along with the <br />possibility of incorporating an Interim Use Permit procedure into <br />the Zoning Code. After further review and discussion regarding <br />the site in question, the staff has conferred with the City <br />Attorney and elected to consider a broader interpretation of the <br />Zoning Ordinance than originally used. This interpretation would <br />consider that as long as the home remains a single family <br />PAGE 12 <br />115 <br />