Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 26, 1996 <br />4. Development of the property must be considered a natural utility extension. <br />5. Development of the property must be considered a natural extension of <br />existing roadways. <br />6. Development of the property shall not adversely effect the health, welfare, and <br />general safety of the community. <br />7. Development of the property shall be environmentally compatible with the <br />surrounding area. <br />8. Development of the property shall be consistent with the City's <br />Comprehensive Park Plan. <br />9. Development of the property shall be consistent with the City's <br />Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan. <br />10. The developer shall demonstrate evidence of a commitment to the community. <br />11. The proposed development shall comply with the City's Infill Policy as <br />outlined by Resolution No. 92 - 85. <br />12. Roadways serving the proposed development shall be determined adequate <br />according to City engineering standards to handle the additional traffic <br />generated by the proposed development, or a financial commitment shall be <br />made by the developer to upgrade said roadway(s). <br />Mr. Wessel explained that the above list of criteria had been reviewed by City Attorney <br />Hawkins, who indicated that having criteria in place is important to the community. <br />General planning issues as well as the balance between commercial and residential properties <br />have been omitted from this list, but will be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan <br />process. <br />Council Member Lyden suggested that public input be sought with regard to interim MUSA <br />designation. <br />Mayor Landers pointed out that the action requested is policy only, and that public input would <br />be solicited in conjunction with individual requests. <br />Council Member Kuether added that any rezoning proposal would result in a public hearing, at <br />which time the public would be notified and invited to provide input. <br />Council Member Kuether suggested that Criterion No. 2 be expanded so that it in no way <br />provides for a guaranteed rezoning. Mr. Wessel concluded that perhaps the entire criterion <br />should be eliminated from the list, as it is vague. <br />Council Member Kuether then raised the issue of Criterion No. 12, explaining concern with <br />reference to roadways. Mr. Wessel indicated that he would work on revision to this item, <br />8 <br />