Laserfiche WebLink
SECTION 1: PROCESS OVERVIEW � http://www.metrocouncil.orq/planninq/LPH/LPHSect1.pdf � <br /> 4. Indicate official local status of the plan amendment. (Check all that appiy.) The local governing body <br /> must take action on the proposed amendment before submittal to the Metropolitan Council. <br /> Action . Date of Action � <br /> X Acted upon by planning commission M� I5, 2006 <br /> X Approved by governing body, contingent upon August 28,2006 <br /> Metro olitan Council review . � <br /> 5. List adjacent local governments, school districts and otherjurisdictions and the date the copies were sent. <br /> Notifying adjacent governmental units and affected school districts is one of the criteria the <br /> Councii will use in defiermining whether an application is deemed complete for review. <br /> City of yndependence City of Tonl:a Bay � <br /> City of Long JLake City of Wayzata ' <br /> Cify of Maple Plain , ' Orono ScHool District#278 . <br /> City of IYYedina . k�e�.�e���t Cou��y Pianni¢�g�epar�¢a�e�n� � <br /> City of Minnetonka Beach I�[ennePin County Public '4�'orks rDepartment <br /> Ciiy of Minnetrista Three Rivers Parks <br /> City of Mounrl MnDOT <br /> City of Plymouth . IYInD�tR-Trails & Waterways <br /> City of Spring Park Minnehaha Creel�Watershed JDisfrict <br /> 6. Identify outstanding issues or conditions made in the Metropoli�an Council's review of the municipality's � <br /> 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update or subsequent comprehensive plan amendment? <br /> No, the Council's review did not identify any issues or conditions. � . <br /> lssue/Condition � Steps taken or future plana�ed actions, inclu�d9ng date <br /> �.) Ci4y needs to comple#e and Submitted, and approved by Niet Council o�a 1Vgarch 22,2006 <br /> submit its�'ier I�Se�v�e•Pla� . <br /> 2)Ci��neetis to subanit an� A.�-year worl�Y/Y plarn �as been subanitted and acceg�ted by IV�CES � <br /> worlc p�lan ' <br /> 3) Ci� neec�s to continue A,A•eas t�e-guided foc•gi•eatei• housitag (I@IlSi$005 91t 2040-2020 Co�p P6ara &��ye be�n <br /> s�vorkir�;tivit�1°Jdet Counci! c�eve4oped per the Pt�r, or aa•e sti!! undeveloped. �'lae Cit��has adogtet� <br /> to�v�n�d anee¢i�g 9�ousing goa9s Conservation l)esign standaa•cls (study conapleted 'cn 2005,ordireance to <br /> � omplernent standards is �ending) to eaas�are ae�aintenance of the `l�ue•ai Oasas' <br /> while allo�cving higher residential densities. �'ne currentiy proposed amendmen� <br /> results in a SFR housing densii��that�voulcl not have been allowed ❑nder the <br /> exASting �uide �ian ancl zoning. <br /> �p�nrasary '��� d <br />