pm_070109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 01, 2009 Page 4 expectations. Mr. Paschke noted that the pool of consultants consisted of those having worked on numerous codes in the past, and that their expertise was included as part of their response to public involvement. Mr. Paschke further advised that the RFP final document going to the five (5) consultants would address public engagement. Mr. Paschke advised that it was intended to provide an interactive website for public comment and to incorporate the public in discussion and decision-making. Further discussion included clarifying that the consultant would be working for the City, with the Community Development Department as the staff contact; and anticipated being on board by November, providing the Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Plan the first part of August, with City Council ratification by the end of August, and allowing sufficient time for the RFP process itself (solicitation, review and award); and addressing the nine (9) months for zoning ordinance revisions based on state statute language following that initiation. Mr. Paschke noted that the City was challenged with the creation of new land use designations and the mandate to create zoning regulations to address those designations; however, he noted that there were some minor revisions to bring the zoning ordinance into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan that could be accomplished sooner rather than later, with the more detailed and complex portions to follow, with goals achieved to provide compliance, whether the Code had yet been ratified or not. Mr. Paschke advised that the Metropolitan Council was very aware of the process to make the documents consistent; and that other communities were facing similar challenges and timeframes. Chair Doherty opined that the Metropolitan Council would allow flexibility, based on the complexity of certain changes. Commissioner Gisselquist questioned the ramifications should a use be proposed in a form- based code that still didn’t fit the mold; and whether it might be considered a Conditional Use. Mr. Paschke advised that, whether a hybrid for form-based code was in place, that would need to be part of the discussion, with options for a variance or denial if not meeting the standards. Additional discussion included how form-based code dealt with PUD’s; formal versus administrative approval processes, with flexibility of form-based development, while allowing oversight by the Planning Commission and City Council to support a project as achieving the requirements for a specific district for outcome-based zoning; with restrictions or prohibitions needed so form-based zoning doesn’t allow cart blanche uses that are not desirable for or in the best interest of the City; and the goal for a dramatically different zoning code, whether Euclidian or form-based, that will provide for general use categories, rather than identifying specific uses, based on type of use and differing impacts (i.e., traffic volume, parking, and/or internet-based business having an international market, but little impact to a neighborhood). Commissioner Wozniak noted two (2) retail examples (i.e., liquor stores and pawn shops), and different code mechanisms controlling where they’re located or how many. Mr. Paschke noted that, in both examples, they were regulated and scrutinized differently, with both spoken to in state statute. Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd noted that the zoning code would need to interact with other City Code sections, in addition to possible creation of a new section that is related to but outside of the scope of zoning or building codes. Chair Doherty noted the flexibility sought from the business perspective no matter their land-use designations, and their lack of interest in being placed in a restrictive box, with no ability to expand their business or client base. Further discussion included various business scenarios, differentiations and guidance restricting uses based on large market area with little traffic volume versus narrow market area with substantial traffic volumes; use examples such as Roseville Crossings proposal at County Road B and Lexington Avenue where the proposed development might be attractive to a dental office or small retailer but not attractive to a larger use, like Ikea; and market dictating uses and design and style occurring whether form or outcome-based zoning allowances apply.