2009_0126_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Bakeman used Snelling Avenue as a prime example, as it was exceeding capacity. Chair Bakeman advised that the Steering Committee had attempted to build into the Comprehensive Plan increased opportunities and relationships with MnDOT, Ramsey County and other communities in addressing traffic issues cooperatively and make improvements. Chair Bakeman noted the improvements made at County Road B and Snelling Avenue when Target was redeveloped, and cost- sharing by various entities, as well as the developer. Chair Bakeman noted that similar cost allocations would be borne by developers adjacent to Twin Lakes Parkway for infrastructure and roadway construction and/or improvements (i.e., park and ride facility by Metro Transit). Chair Bakeman advised that the Comprehensive Plan provides a great deal of guidance in considering alternative travel modes; and assured citizens that the Steering Committee attempted to take their concerns into consideration. Commissioner poherty concurred with Chair Bakeman's comments; and noted that most of the items addressed in the Comprehensive Plan achieved consensus after productive discussion; however, noted that those few items not achieving consensus were now before the Commission as detailed in staff's report on page 3: • The role of master plans within the plan; • The definition of the Community Business future land use category; and • The future land use designation of the HarMar Mall and SuperTarget. 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; whetherthe 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 7