2014_1201_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B However it’s worded, Member Boguszewski opined that the heart of the proposal was to make Interim Uses more open-ended; and everything preferred to add checks and balances would essentially be stripped away by making it open ended. Member Boguszewski stated that he could not support the proposed language. From a procedural perspective, Member Murphy asked if there was a way to convey to the City Council and public that the Commission preferred to retain the maximum of five years for Interim Uses; and if the amendment was voted on and the failed significantly, would it serve to state that purpose, rather than simply not taking action. Member Boguszewski, with consensus of the body, opined that he would like to have a record of the vote to provide documentation of the culmination of the will of the Planning Commission. Member Boguszewski advised that his personal vote would be prejudiced, as he considered this the wrong way to go about solving a real problem. MOTION Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to adopt the proposed amendment in lines 64-71 of the staff report dated October 8, 2014; amending language consistent with language in Minnesota State Statute MN 2013, Section 394.303 for Interim Uses Member Murphy spoke against the motion for reasons as stated previously during tonight’s discussion. Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of current language; and stated his opposition to changes based on specific events, as compelling as they may be, opining that the City’s laws should be drafted to provide guidance rather than changing them for a specific reason, and further opined that a twenty year term was not an interim time period. Member Cunningham concurred with Chair Gisselquist’s comments, opining that 20 years was not an interim period. From his personal perspective, Member Daire opined that an Interim Use should be transitional to what is actually desired on a property, further noting several comments about whether or not HDR was even a desired use in that location, particularly with regard to current economic situations. Member Daire stated that he would have to vote against the motion, noting that the comprehensive plan period is only ten years, and the current Interim Use time period is half of that at five years; and his expectation would be that within that timeframe a property should be able to transition into its new use. While he didn’t personally see that happening, Member Daire stated that he would stand with the rest of the Commission in opposition to the proposed language changes. Ayes: 0 Nays: 5 Motion failed unanimously.