Laserfiche WebLink
Community Development Director Trudgeon advised that staff discussed the recent joint meeting <br />between the City Council and Planning Commission during the Work Session on March 15, <br />2005. At that time, the Council had indicated a willingness to communicate to the Planning <br />Commission some clarification and possibly direction concerning the Comprehensive Plan <br />process. <br /> <br />Corn. reunify Development Director Trudgeon stated this is an attempt to draft some standards <br />thai can be used to discover the merit or lack of merit to consider a land use change. He <br />presented the draft policy dated March 22, 2005 that contained the following criteria: <br /> <br />The proposed land use considers traffic levels and patterns. <br />a. Traffic impacts of the proposal should be assessed for adjacent streets and <br /> affected collector streets. Impacts resulting in a safety hazard, increase in fire or <br /> police re.5ponse time, or substantial increase in traffic congestion should be <br /> mitigated. <br />b. Potential future travel corridors should be identified and presented where <br /> .feasible. <br />The community's expenditures for new or additional services required by the <br />proposed land use will be recovered if the proposal goes forward. <br />Environmental sensitive resources should be known, and as per section 9.21. O1 of the <br />City Code "development shall be so regulated as to minimize risk of environmental <br />damage to these areas." <br />The potential of the parcel containing a greenway corridor or open space area <br />should be reviewed and if present, appropriate preservation strategies shall be <br />employed. <br />Sewer and water capacity is adequate to service the proposed development <br />a. Existing residents shall not be assessed for any necessary improvements. <br />The type of density transition, as required by Section 9.20.05 Subd. 3.c of City Code <br />that will be utilized as part of the land use shall be identified and approved by the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon noted that each potential development is different <br />but this would provide full options available under Code and a comfort level to the Council and <br />residents that the City is looking at it seriously. He stated this language is what staff is proposing <br />and requested Council input so it can be provided to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated his support for the direction provided by this draft policy. He noted, <br />however, that the Planning Commission generally does not consider recouping costs as addressed <br />in criteria #2 so, perhaps, it could be indicated that criteria #2 is for Council and staff discretion. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook noted it is good for the Planning Commission to be aware that it is a <br />consideration for the Council so maybe it can be left in and an asterisk added to so indicate. <br /> <br />Councilmcmber Elvig concurred. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / March 22, 2005 <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />