My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1986/07/07
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
Agenda Packets - 1986/07/07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 1:55:19 PM
Creation date
4/1/2025 1:55:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/7/1986
Description
Work / Executive Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
I <br />MEMO 90: MAYOR AND (:I'IY (fgINr II, <br />FROM: <br />r <br />DA1'F.; <br />Em <br />('I.1'RR-ADMINISTRATOR AND DIRFCTOR OF PIINLIC WC <br />COMMONITY DFVFLOPMF.NT DIRFCI'OR <br />,IIINF: 10, 19R6 NAim 1 <br />6 <br />SIm yr : STAFF RFSPONSF '1'0 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON <br />W11ORN01; STUDY <br />After reviewing thr Planning rommission t'epnrt and Resolution <br />No. 166-96, which prerede this memnrand•Im, Starf felt it <br />appropriate to providr A response to these Incuwwnts in order I.o <br />prnvido an overall perapertive And clarify the facto upon which <br />anme Comments or conclusions of the Planning Commission ware <br />based. <br />The Planning Commission's Resolution tin, 166-86 recommends theL <br />the Woornos Report he neither adopted nor implemented. Thin <br />recommnndatinn is based upnn four findings listed in the <br />resolution with the first of Lheae being, "...contains <br />inaccuraries and incnnsistences in data;". As the Planning <br />Cnmmission did not see fit, to invite Mr. Wunroos to any of their <br />mertings when reviewing his report Si.dff wishes to aadress each <br />of Lhe statements made in their report which seem to have <br />resulted in this conclusion. <br />1. "The Planning Cnmmissicn contends that our present <br />/r difficulties are related to the fact. that the <br />II Comprehensive Plan was never implemented in these <br />planning districts, and further, that the reluctance of <br />previous councils to implement the Plan indicate that <br />there are still many unresolved conflicts in opinion and <br />planning philosophy." <br />The fact that the rernmmendatinns of the Comprehensive <br />Plan have not been fully implemented in Planning <br />Uislrict.s 6 and 12 are a dirert result of the fact that <br />the City Cnuncil at the time of the rnmprehencive <br />Rezoninqs to implement the recommendations of the <br />rnmprehensive Plan, was reluctant to "down zone" <br />property and potentially become involved in the issue of <br />taking land by means of zoning. Any differences of <br />opinion as to how the area should he developed and/or <br />planninq philosophies, were voiced after the <br />romprnhonsive Reznninos occurred and had no impact upon <br />the decision of the Cnunr.il not to rezone at that time. <br />2. "Prnperty along Ilighway 10 appears to he suitable for <br />residential Ilses as well as commercial uses". <br />The Wunrnns Report's rerommendations relating to <br />rlevnlnp;nent were as follows: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.