My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECM 07-11-1984
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
MINUTES
>
1984
>
PRECM 07-11-1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2007 2:53:28 AM
Creation date
3/29/2007 3:08:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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).
View images
View plain text
11 <br />The intent seems plain. Some municipalities have stated that their access to <br />master plans has come only after the agency has adopted the plan., making subs- <br />tantive change to meet their concerns improbable. If this has happened, it is <br />not consistent with policy.- <br />From .another point of view, some implementing agencies cite cases in which <br />municipalities have delayed plan approval unduly in some cases insisting upon <br />conditions which work. against the agency or the regional interest. Some imple- <br />menting agencies have been prevented from installing needed improvements, even <br />developments for which the municipalities had given earlier concept approval.. <br />There are differences in the laws which control implementing agencies from one <br />jurisdiction to another and some of these have, on occasion, blocked an <br />implementing agency from going ahead with regional projects. <br />One major effect some municipalities have exerted upon regional open space has <br />been special assessments levied against parks. The Council, the ,.commission and <br />some of the implementing agencies have stated increasing concern over the pro- <br />cess by which municipalities have made special assessments against regional <br />parkland, questioning if they were based upon actual benefits to the park. <br />Other concerns are about how. assessments should be paid and when they should <br />be set. <br />One remedy suggested is that the municipality and the implementing agency <br />could agree to treat the master plan as a conditional use permit, possibly <br />meeting at once concerns on the part of the municipalities, the implementing <br />agency and the Council about the current planning process. <br />Related Questions: <br />1. How much control over regional park development should municipalities <br />have? What happens if more than one municipality is involved? <br />2. Are the problems real and large enough to be worth bothering about? <br />3. If an implementing agency and municipality agreed to treat a regional park <br />master plan for development as a conditional use permit, would it help <br />resolve the problems cited? <br />4. Is there a simpler and, therefore, better way to deal with the concerns? <br />5. What are the "pluses and minuses" to a municipality from a regional park <br />located within or adjacent to its boundaries? <br />ISSUE 12. How much leadership does or should the Council"s recreation open <br />space program prow a in a area o a Irma eve ac ion an m~nori y us~ness <br />Currently, the policy plan for recreation open space does not address this <br />issue. <br />In its recent contracts, the Council (May 2983) has inserted language as <br />follows: <br />The Council shall not discriminate...on the basis of race, color, creed, <br />religion, national origin, sex, affectional or sexual preference, age., <br />political affiliate, marital status, or status with regard to public <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.