Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o Change the Metro Plan MDR designation and amend the J/F\\' RP and/or .code to <br />implement specific- new po Ii c.y and development standards tnat\\'ould limit density <br />e.g., belo\v the R.-2 maxinlum)'and/or establish development sta.ndards to assure <br />~'maintaining the character of the area," as the J/F\V RP requires. <br /> <br />This would have produced essentially the same outcome as \vha.t is envisioned as <br />the long-term solution for Area. IS that \vin (hopefully) be a result of the "InfiU <br />. Compatibility Standards" program that's under\vay. <br /> <br />In the past, there has been some confusion to the effect that thela\v "required" Counc.il <br />to amend the Metro I>lan designation to make it MDR. This isn't. correct, and either of <br />the above alternative actions could havebee.n taken by Council in 2004 <br /> <br />The law does require that the Metro Plan prevail over conflicting refinement. plan <br />policies, and therefore it makes sense to amend one or both plans if they are in <br />conflict. But the la'Vv obviously lets theCouncilde9ide \vhich poHcy(ies) (e.g., LDR or <br />MD.R designation)\vill ultimately be reflected in both plans (a.nd code). <br /> <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br /> <br />Ple,asc: contact either of us if \ve can be of assistance. <br /> <br />Respectfully, <br /> <br />~(!;~~ <br /> <br />P~t C~ <br /> <br /> <br />Rene <br />254 Vvr.' 14th l\ ve. <br />rkane@Jtighstrearn .net <br /> <br />343-4309 <br /> <br />Paul Conte, Co-Chair <br />1461 \\'. I Oth ~r\ve. <br />pc-onte@picante-soft.com 344-2552 <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />III.. 3 I <br />