My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/03/2000 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
2000
>
04/03/2000 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 9:30:55 AM
Creation date
7/24/2018 9:22:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
4/3/2000
Year
2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Memo re Request for Special Use Permit <br />at 731 Beta &om Mayor Rinker 412-00 <br />Page 2 <br />Overview• <br />Most city planners advise that a municipality should upgrade and evaluate its <br />comprehensive zoning plan-some communities have a master plan-every 5 to 10 years <br />in some objective fashion. Generally speaking, communities should consider short, <br />middle and long term planning and zoning goals, by identifying issues that can be mere <br />trends versus true shifts in the overall commuauity environment. There is little question <br />that the long term economic health of a community, its quality of }ife characteristics, <br />demands placed on services, and sunilar factors are all in some fashion related to the <br />success, or lack tttereof, of a viable planning and zoning code and its administration <br />In a number of areas, we have been constrained to consider in a variety of ways <br />several of these issues, typically as they arise in conjunction with projects. From the <br />time we began working to resolve the long-stancling conflict with the LaConte family <br />and Parkview Golf Course, up to the present, we have paid increasing attention to these <br />isstxes. <br />The Beta Complex, for the most part, has remained pretty much at status quo. I <br />, suggest it is appropriate for us to look closer at Beta to see whether or not we want to <br />make any adjustment to it. Simply evaluating it does not mean we will make any <br />? change--but it does mean we will at some future point be able to say that we considered <br />unportant, objective factors thoughtfully be£ore we conclude one way or the other. I <br />firmly believe that one tasic of municipal government is to engage in this evaluative <br />process collectively on an ongoing basis. In such fashion, the municipality sustains its <br />constitutional burden of avoiding decision-making that is "arbitrary, capricious and <br />unreasonable," as individual constitutional challenges to municipal decisions are <br />typically couched, and instead demonstrates that it has reasonably acted in the best <br />interests of the "health, welfare and safety" of our community. <br />We should not be afraid to ask the questions first. The answers can come later. <br />In the specific permit and variance issues before us, I think we have a good <br />opportunity to promote a viable, useful and non threatening use. We should <br />understand the limited scope of the request being made. <br />The medium and long term issues are secondary, can be handled effectively over <br />time and need not be decided now. But I think they are worth noting, because the <br />immediate, specific issue before us is one that we may be facing again; in fact, we A-MY <br />want to face it again We should consider developing strategies for Beta with better <br />sophistication. <br />_?I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.