Laserfiche WebLink
con~prchensive plan does not dictate the lot size. This ordinance does not require a <br />comprehensive plan amendment, which the removal of the 4 in 40 would require. <br /> <br />There was considerable discussion regarding density and lot sizes in relation to the ordinance and <br />the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested staff put together something on the 4 in 40 amendment to the <br />comprehensive plan in addition to this ordinance, to allow the Council to give direction to the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated a lot of the :discussion at the Planning Commission meeting was <br />about whether the ordinance was consistent With the comprehensive plan. He would propose if <br />the Council feels the ordinance is cOnsistent With the comprehensive plan, that they send a <br />resolution down to the Planning Commission stating it is consistent and to move forward. <br /> <br />There was discussion concerning the direction from the Council and the concerns of the <br />Commissioners about the ordinance in relation to'the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Ralph Bauer, Member of the Planning Commission, stated his understanding was that the City <br />Council and the Planning Commission had determined in their joint meeting that the Council <br />would meet with the Planning Commission to discuss this issue together in a work session. He <br />stated the Comlnission had questions about the ordinance meeting the comprehensive plan. He <br />stated Councihnember Pearson has been wonderful in coming to the Planning Commission <br />meetings and informing them about things. The Commission has discussed that meetings, <br />especial ly when there are policy issues like this, would be beneficial. <br /> <br />Councihnember Elvig stated his understanding of the joint meeting was that the Plamfing <br />Commission wanted input on ordinances, :possibly after a skeleton ordinance has been drafted. <br />That is what the Council was doing with this ordinance, and giving the Plmming Commission an <br />opportunity roi' input. He stated as he reviews the comprehensive plan, this ordinance is <br />consistent with the plan, <br /> <br />There was discussion among the Councilmembers as to whether the ordinance should go back <br />bcfore the Planning Commission with direction from the Council to proceed, or whether the <br />ordinance should be voted on at the Council level. <br /> <br />Mr. Bauer suggested if the Planning Commission were to receive an opinion from the City <br />Attorney stating that this ordinance is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, it would serve <br />as direction to the Commission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig inquired if the Council can come to a consensus at the work session that <br />the ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and suggested it go back before the <br />Planning Commission with that direction. He would prefer not to see this discussion included <br />with the discussion on the comprehensive plan amendment if the consensus of the Council is that <br />it is consistent. <br /> <br />City Council Work SessiOn/November 30, 2004 <br /> Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />