2014_0818_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D As it relates to new development or redevelopment, Mr. Paschke noted there was not broad discretion, as the Code remained strict on what could or could not be done, with this proposed zoning opening the area up to other things beyond HDR-1 for 24 units per acre, through permitted or conditional use; and still required to meet standards as well as other things embedded in code for the CMU District, and allowing staff the administrative discretion to monitor those things. Mr. Paschke reiterated that other sections of City Code limit and restrict certain uses, therefore not creating a situation where the City was losing its jurisdiction to control or regulate things. Mr. Paschke noted that the only thing the action was doing with the zoning text amendments and reasoning was opening it up to additional uses, which were historical uses on those properties and those consistent with the changes that took place in 2008 and in 2010. Historically speaking, Mr. Paschke advised that this action was consistent with that and would continue to be consistent in the future. Chair Gisselquist expressed his general support of the motion; opining that his only concern was in the amount of time spent on the regulating plan, but recognized the need to have these barriers in place, and it was good to revise them for more realistic uses. Chair Gisselquist questioned the prudency of the time spent discussing the Interim Use permit for Vogel Sheetmetal earlier tonight, when subsequent comments led him to believe that they would be unable to get financing unless zoning changes were implemented. Member Boguszewski noted that, based on the need for the Metropolitan Council’s approval after the City Council considers approval, it could take considerable time to implement the changes for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Paschke stated that since this was only a minor change to the Comprehensive Plan, he didn’t see it as a long-term review by the Metropolitan Council. Chair Gisselquist noted that since the City Council had requested this change, their approval was probably a given. Member Murphy noted that it took four years to realize that HDR was not going to develop at this location. Chair Gisselquist noted that, with Sherman and Associates locating their project nearby, they could now be faced with a Light Industrial use adjacent to it. However, Chair Gisselquist stated that he would support the motion. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Super Majority required) Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Subject to change, this case is scheduled to be heard at the City Council on June 23, 2014.