02-27-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a. No time to allow for planning. b. No authority to decide in the case of variances. The intent of the meeting was specifically to find ways to assist the Planning Commission to do longer range planning together with determining if there were appropriate ways that were agreeable to Council to expand the Planning Commission's authority. The apparent tenor of the meeting indicated that the Planning Commission did not interpret what was being proposed in this light, and felt it was being proposed as a means to take away the little responsibility that they have. IV. Rebers' Subdivision - A couple of issues mentioned in this area included the fact that the Planning Commission felt that the presentation at one meeting of the preliminary subdivision application was confusing as to whether John Shardlow was an advocate for the developer or the City. Additionally it was the feeling that thf. whole process on Rebers' was muddled by threat of annexation. Response - A review of the documents specifically shows that John Shardlow was representing the City at the sketch plan review and the first public hearing for rezoning and subdivision although he happened to sit next to the developer the night of the Planning Commission consideration of the initial rezoning subdivision because other chairs in the Council room were occupied. He introduced the application as would City staff. The issue was raised by Mr. Shardlow at the time that it happened and staff expected it to have been an issue of short term duration. As for the issue of annexation, the Planning Commission reviewed the initial Comprehensive Plan in February/March timeframe of 1987. The Council began their consideration through the March/April timeframe and during this period Long Lake indicated their desire to annex all the property on the north side of Highway 12. This was reiterated in a letter to the City of Long Lake of June '87, during the Council's review of the amendment process and prior to their final vote for submission to Metro Council. This was very visible as these letters were presented at the public meetings at which at least a couple of the Planning Commission members were present as representatives. V. Communications - In this area comments included: - The general comment that there was a breakdown in communication. "Us verses Thera" A feeling of: A lack of understanding as to the Council's support of the rural character of Orono but more to the point "what is the Counci's planning