2011-02-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 02, 2011 Page 3 City Attorney Bartholdi responded that other areas of City Code referenced the terms 97 “property owners” and “adjacent property owners” indicating the intended distinction. Mr. 98 Bartholdi noted that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was different than a Rezoning 99 Amendment request, in that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment required more formal 100 action by the City through the Metropolitan Council, limiting those able to initiate such 101 Amendments. 102 At the request of Member Gottfried, City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that, in pursuant to 103 Minnesota State Statutes, the Planning Commission and/or City Council could initiate 104 such action; and City Ordinance, Section 201.07, also allowed for the subject property 105 owner could to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 106 At the request of Chair Boerigter, City Attorney Bartholdi provided the context and 107 distinctions in the process for appeals to the Variance Board. 108 Chair Boerigter opened the meeting to public comment at 7:52 p.m., reiterating the focus 109 of tonight’s meeting, not to further address the underlying zoning, but to determine 110 whether staff and the City Attorney properly interpreted City Code in denying this petition 111 to appeal. 112 Public Comment 113 Karen Hagen, 2485 County Road C-2 W 114 Ms. Hagen reviewed the history of the neighborhood concerns and their intent in 115 appealing the decision since their attendance at Planning Commission and City Council 116 meetings began in August of 2010. Ms. Hagen offered respect for the Comprehensive 117 Plan land use designations and implications on future property considerations; however, 118 she noted the limited knowledge and expertise in clearly understanding all the issues and 119 procedures involved. Ms. Hagen expressed her frustration in feeling that they had gotten 120 “lost in the system” and their attempts to follow proper procedures, and 121 miscommunications or misinterpretations experienced along the way. Ms. Hagen asked 122 that the Commission find the essence of a solution tonight to avoid the neighborhood 123 having to waste additional time, when it was obvious to everyone what the majority was 124 seeking. 125 rd Brian Buck, 3609 33 Avenue NW, St. Anthony Village 126 Mr. Buck stated his intent to challenge the notion that tonight’s discussion shouldn’t be 127 broadened; and asked that the Planning Commission initiate action to Amend the 128 Comprehensive Plan to allow the discussion to be broadened. 129 Chair Boerigter requested that such a point not be belabored; and that should an 130 individual Planning Commissioner seek to initiate such an Amendment, it would be done 131 so as a separate and distinct agenda item. 132 City Planner Paschke clarified that the City Council had previously heard a request for 133 Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this property and had made the decision to keep it’s 134 designation as High Density Residential (HDR); and had subsequently approved the 135 City’s Official Zoning Map with that land use designation. Mr. Paschke further noted that, 136 prior to that City Council action, the Planning Commission did hear this request as a 137 separate issue, with corresponding Open Houses and Public Hearings, and on a split 138 vote, recommended to the City Council that the subject properties be guided Medium 139 Density Residential (MDR), but the City Council had chosen not to concur with that 140 recommendation. 141 Mr. Paschke noted that, as residents, property owners have the right to petition for 142 rezoning; however, the action before the Commission tonight is a determination as to 143 whether adjacent property owners could petition the City Council to amend its 144 Comprehensive Plan under City Code requirements. Mr. Paschke clarified that adjacent 145 property owners could petition for rezoning of adjacent properties, but it was fruitless 146 without a parallel process to Amend the Comprehensive Plan accordingly, which could 147 only be initiated by the subject property owner, the Planning Commission or City Council 148 itself. 149