2014-11-05_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 18 they paid, which proved that as a group they contributed significantly to the financial well- 875 being of the community as well as the business community. 876 Ms. McCormack opined that this would be a poor policy to make this open-ended given 877 the current issue unless the intent was to review the planning process to ensure residents 878 are guaranteedperiodic inspections and adequate enforcement. 879 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 9:15p.m. 880 Discussion 881 Chair Gisselquist stated that he was inclined not to act and leave the language as is, 882 since he considered this event-driven, and preferred to shy away from changing the 883 zoning code for specific events.Member Boguszewski opined that he liked the five year 884 term, and while perhaps amenable to a little more time, he considered any longer term to 885 create the need to think about rezoning a parcel. 886 However it’s worded, Member Boguszewski opined that the heart of the proposal was to 887 make Interim Uses more open-ended; and everything preferred to add checks and 888 balances would essentially be stripped away by making it open ended.Member 889 Boguszewski stated that he could not support the proposed language. 890 From a procedural perspective, Member Murphyasked if there was a way to convey to 891 the City Council and public that the Commission preferred to retain the maximum of five 892 years for Interim Uses; and if theamendment was voted on and the failed significantly, 893 would it serve to state that purpose, rather than simply not taking action. 894 Member Boguszewski, with consensus of the body, opined that he would like to have a 895 record of the vote to provide documentation of the culmination of the will of the Planning 896 Commission.Member Boguszewski advised that his personal vote would be prejudiced, 897 as he considered this the wrong way to go about solving a real problem. 898 MOTION 899 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Gisselquistto adopt the proposed 900 amendment in lines 64-71 of the staff report dated October 8, 2014; amending 901 language consistent with language in Minnesota State Statute MN 2013, Section 902 394.303 for Interim Uses 903 Member Murphy spoke against the motion for reasons as stated previously during 904 tonight’s discussion. 905 Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of current language; and stated his opposition to 906 changes based on specific events, as compelling as they may be, opining that the City’s 907 laws should be drafted to provide guidance rather than changing them for a specific 908 reason, and further opined that a twenty year term was not an interim time period. 909 Member Cunningham concurred with Chair Gisselquist’s comments, opining that 20 910 years was not an interim period. 911 From his personal perspective, Member Daire opined that an Interim Use should be 912 transitional to what is actually desired on a property, further noting several comments 913 about whether or not HDR was even a desired use in that location, particularly with 914 regard tocurrent economic situations.Member Daire stated that he would have to vote 915 against the motion, noting that the comprehensive plan period is only ten years, and the 916 current Interim Use time period is half of that at five years; and his expectation would be 917 that within that timeframe a property should beable to transition into its new use.While 918 he didn’t personally see that happening, Member Daire stated that he would stand with 919 the rest of the Commission in opposition to the proposed language changes. 920 Ayes: 0 921 Nays: 5 922 Motion failed unanimously. 923