pm_100108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 01, 2008 Page 12 Section 11-5, Master Plan Discussion Chair Bakeman noted Steering Committee votes as detailed on page 3 of the staff report related to existing master plans, the Twin Lakes' master plan, and future plans, as indicated. Discussion included engaging policy makers (City Council) in determining on a case-by- case basis whether existing master plans should be included in the Comprehensive Plan Update, based on their current relevancy; discussion of language and its intent in Item 1 of page 11-5 under the section entitled, “Relationship Between master Plans and the Comprehensive Plan” and demonstrated in language on page 4-22, section entitled, “Future Land Use Plan;” potential deviation since it was a “tool;” master plans versus zoning codes; the illustrative and visionary nature of the Comprehensive Plan versus a master plan creating specific discussion of a geographical area; and the need for clarity and how that clarity could be achieved. Further discussion included Twin Lakes master plan as an example; creation of a new zoning district (B-6) specifically designed for that area’s redevelopment (i.e., streets and a transportation plan with relievers off County Road C and discussion with MnDOT in relationship to I-35W, and City construction of Terrace Road with a median as part of a future Twin Lakes Parkway); and their eventual implementation. Additional discussion included timing for determining how to address existing and future master plans; their impact to development in specific areas; whether to delay addressing master plans as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update and provide them as amendments at a later date if it is determined that they should be included or referenced in the Plan; purpose of master plans as a guide and their legal affects; super majority vote for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and implications for master plans and their subsequent value in only requiring a simple majority vote if not incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, and remaining stand alone guides; and recognition that the Comprehensive Plan does not include zoning ordinances, but provides an overview, with zoning ordinances providing controls or allowing for implementation of the broader policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ensued regarding intent and clarity of language on page 11-5, subd. 1; whether the language should define master plans as a “guide” rather than a “tool;” and whether there was consensus among Planning Commissioners that incorporating master plans into the Comprehensive Plan was not a good idea, when its purpose was to provide “ideals,” or nonbinding ideas. Commissioner Boerigter opined that the City Council should have a clear timetable on what the City’s intent is for each and every existing master plan, to provide clarity for neighbors, citizens and the Metropolitan Council as to what the master plans meant. Commissioner Boerigter encouraged Commissioners to be clear, and if existing master plans were intended to be nonbinding, without further action of the City Council, then there should be no question that, based on a 4/5 vote, the City Council has decided that every existing master plan is nothing more than a nonbinding guide for development. Commissioner Gottfried opined that the Commission needed to determine the value of master plans, and to make that value and their intent very clear in the Comprehensive Plan, one way or another. Commissioner Doherty opined that, while not saying master plans didn’t have value, they should be identified as nonbinding without specific action of the City Council by simple majority vote. Chair Bakeman opined that the master plans must be in concert with the Comprehensive Plan, and any pieces that don’t agree would need to change, either in the Comprehensive Plan or a master plan.