Laserfiche WebLink
to several opportunities for residential development in 2005. If the City sets a moratorium at this <br />time it sends out a negative message that the City is anti-development. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman advised staff would like to discuss drafting a letter from the City <br />Council to the Planning Commission that would explain the Council's position regarding the <br />consideration of development applications prior to the completion of the City's Comprehensive <br />Plan Update later this year. <br /> <br />Councihnember Strommen stated she is confused on what the point of the letter would be. <br />Clearly the Planning Commission considered the proposals and voted how they felt they should <br />vote. She questioned if the letter would lay out some criteria by which these development <br />proposals should be considered or would direct the Planning Commission to just consider them. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman replied the direction to the Planning Commission would simply be to <br />consider the developments on their merits without the bigger picture of the Comprehensive Plan <br />process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook commented this direction was the message of the last joint City <br />Council/Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />City Adlninistrator replied staff agrees, but the Planning Commission does not seem to agree <br />based on their comments. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen suggested if the Council is going to ask the Planning Commission not <br />to use the Comprehensive Plan as the reason to vote against these developments, it would be <br />beneficial to provide some criteria for the Commission to follow. She stated once one of these <br />developments is approved the floodgates will open and the City begins to lose options. These are <br />not minor amendments; they are fairly significant. She expressed concern that by the time they <br />get to the larger planning process the City may have missed opportunities and foreclosed options. <br />She questioned how one development can be approved and another denied if they do not know <br />the factors to consider and the merits on which to rate them. She stated one of the things she <br />appreciates about this Council is the commitment they have made in that they understand <br />development is coming and have embraced it in a way that they want to control and shape the <br />City. The City's Comprehensive Plan update process is now delayed and considering these <br />amendments before that is completed may limit their options in the future. To mitigate that there <br />should be some criteria on which developments can be rated based on issues like transportation, <br />green space, and open space. <br /> <br />Couneilmember Cook stated the letters and telephone calls he has received, and what he saw <br />when watching the Planning Commission meeting, come from a gap between the knowledge the <br />City Council has and the knowledge the Planning Commission and general public have. He <br />keeps hearing questions about why they are not staying in the MUSA lines and about <br />leapfrogging. However, the City Council has been working under the understanding that the <br />MUSA does not exist any longer. This is information that needs to get out. Another question he <br />hears is why the City is not working within the Comprehensive Plan. The answer to that is that <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/March 15, 2005 <br /> Page 3 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />