Laserfiche WebLink
I 11590.2 <br />; : <br />TO: Mayor and City Council <br />FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ <br />DATE: January 12, 1990 <br />SUBJECT: Navarre - Master Planning <br />I <br />Attachment ;A. Navarre Memo Dated 11/21/89 <br />B. Navarre Memo Dated 6/21/89 <br />C. Navarre Memo Dated 10/18/89 <br />ISSUE - Determination by the Council as to what direction they <br />would like to take as it relates to the Navarre area. <br />INTRODUCTION - The Council held a meeting in June to review the <br />analysis work done by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban together with <br />holding a public meeting on November 18, 1989, at which property <br />owners, business owners and residents in the area were invited at <br />the Freshwater Biological Institute. Attachment A was prepared <br />as a follow up to that meeting. <br />DISCUSSION - In Attachment A there are three issues outlined <br />which are as follows: <br />Issue ^1. Does the City Choose to do anything further at this <br />point in the area regarding: <br />a. Aesthetic look of the area <br />b. Land use <br />It was indicated at the November 13, 1989 meeting that <br />the Council would review this issue in the January - <br />February timeframe. <br />If the Council desires to do anything furthe. with this <br />matter staff would notify, as was indicated at the <br />meeting, the residents in attendance that this item <br />would be on the agenda for its second meeting in <br />February. <br />Issue #2. If the City does choose to do something, at what level <br />do they want to approach it? <br />a. Master plan of land use <br />b. Comprehensive Plan amendment <br />c. Any applicable rezonings <br />The sense of informal discussion following the November <br />18th meeting was that the City should go through a <br />process to identify what it would like in the future, <br />but that it would not take any active role in it. <br />As such, it would be appropriate to go through a process