2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 17 Further discussion included industrial machinery (e.g. front end loaders) sold at a 810 dealership on Snelling Avenue; trucking firms currently occupying industrial areas and 811 on-site repair of larger vehicles and equipment; and legally non-conforming uses from 812 previous Industrial Zoning Districts; and whether railroad locomotives would also fall 813 under this category, with staff confirming it would as there were no size limits addressed 814 under the definition portion. 815 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 9:45 p.m.; no one appeared for or against. 816 MOTION 817 Member Daire moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to the 818 City Council APPROVAL of the proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT to Chapter 819 1006 of the City Code to eliminate the size limitation unintentionally applied to 820 motor vehicles that may be repaired in the Industrial Zoning District; as detailed 821 and based on the comments and findings of Section 4-6, and the recommendation 822 of Section 7 of the staff report dated May 1, 2013. 823 Ayes: 7 824 Nays: 0 825 Motion carried. 826 Anticipated City Council action is scheduled for May 20, 2013. 827 7. Other Business 828 a. City Council Joint Meeting Agenda 829 City Planner Paschke reviewed the draft agenda developed by staff for the upcoming 830 joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on May 13, 2013. Mr. 831 Paschke noted that this was developed from past discussions of the Commission; and 832 sought any comment, additional items, revisions or other discussion on these topics. 833 Chair Gisselquist opined that this covered past discussions and should suffice and 834 provide good discussion points. 835 Member Boguszewski pointed out a typographical error on the first line of the second 836 bullet point (delete “be”). 837 Member Daire questioned the intent of the third bullet point related to a yearly work plan 838 for the body; and how staff or the Commission could anticipate what applications would 839 come before the body in any effort to develop a work plan. 840 Mr. Paschke clarified that this was not a prediction of work volume or cases coming 841 before the body; but simply loosely defined goals or objectives of the body on items (e.g. 842 text amendments) with a generalized timeline to consider them to keep them moving 843 forward as done in the past, and determined by actual application case load of staff and 844 the body. Mr. Paschke advised that this component had been part of past Commissions, 845 even though not all goals had been completed annually, depending on that work load. Mr. 846 Paschke noted that the major component of the Commission’s role was responding to 847 public applicants for various applications, conditional use permits and rezoning, and that 848 it would continue to be at least 90% of the body’s tasks and volunteer work on the 849 Commission. 850 Mr. Paschke advised that there were always details needing vetting through the process, 851 including additional staff research and reports to the body for its consideration and 852 discussion before it moved down a more formalized action process (e.g. public hearing 853 and subsequent recommendation to the City Council). Mr. Paschke noted that everything 854 done by the body required some formal action (e.g. amending an ordinance, map 855 amendment, Comprehensive Plan text amendment, etc.) and suggested that those types 856 of items would be included on an annual work plan. Mr. Paschke noted that it was the 857 Planning Commission’s perspective that those things included on that work plan needed 858 to be addressed over the next 12-18 months, with some already behind schedule and 859 others very out-of-date for further discussion. Mr. Paschke advised that he didn’t see an 860