Agenda - Council - 01/09/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I conducting a special election. The initiative from the residents would make more sense, bu{:iheke is still some question if that can be done because of the Land Planning Act. Motion by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Mayor Gamec, to table Further discussion: Councilmember Hendriksen inquired as to how long Mayor Gamec replied that he has a real problem with the January 3~ legal opinion. Motion' failed. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Connolly, Hendriksen, and Zimmerman. Original Motion carried. Voting Yes: Zimmerman. Voting No: Mayor Gamec and' ave a gooa~ Voting No. Co~olly, ~d Motion by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Mayor Density Transition Ordinance as drafted. continue working on the Further discussion: good ordinance already participated in drafting the o: would be willing to continue forward. there was a would have He stated that he motion does not move Motion carried. Hendriksen, Anderson, C0nnolly, I Case #2: Requirements Commum that currently City Code requires park dedication in combination thereof when property is subdivided. There is the development to occur on property and no subdivision may be required. ~~~lr~...m..nce, it is that there could bed multi-family rental development that would not ~~equl~':!~'bdivision~~'x*"'~ Pioneer}3'. Under the current subdivision regulations, the City would not hav~'~he;oppo~ ~;.;.iS!:/e~.in park dedication when no subdivision is required. Based on conversat~onslLwath a le~ of other commumtles, staff has drafted an ordinance that would require subdivi;Sion on developments, even if subdivision of l~rol~ertv is not reclUired. The Planning Co~Sion reviewed the Ordinance on December 5, 2000. '~,,Motion~,, . .,..~,,.by G&'~h'hcilmember Zimmerman, seconded by Councilmember Cormolly, to introduce ~O~dinanc~e~t)- to require park dedication on development projects do not require 'q'.5;~,1~,. · ~.;~'., --7- sUDOI~S1Ot1' oI lane1. City Council/December 19, 2000 Page 13 of 19 -101-