pm_121609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 16, 2009 Page 6 Commissioner Doherty noted the recent completion and available of the MnDOT “Complete Streets” study to develop streetscapes that would be more pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly and how that might be implemented from a code perspective and urban aspects of certain major commercial and/or retail corridors. Commissioner Gisselquist noted the same need in residential areas to make them more pedestrian friendly through development and connectivity of paths and sidewalks. Mr. Paschke indicated that not all of those issues could be addressed in zoning, but also through the Pathway Master Plan and Park Master Planning process, with those amenities available in zoning as redevelopment of parcels occurred, with connections to path systems, adjacent parks and/or residential areas part of the design standards. Commissioner Gottfried noted the problems in achieving those amenities on roads not under the City’s jurisdiction (i.e., County roads). Mr. Paschke noted that those were typically addressed by the City through Reconstruction of those roadways, and it was infrequent that it happened otherwise unless grant monies were available or petition-driven. Further discussion was related to future need for Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) once the zoning code was rewritten, with them becoming the exception to the rule, based on successful development of design standards and flexibility within comprehensive plan land sue designations where unique circumstances don’t exist; and historical micro- management of development details by the City of some PUD’s those standards. Concluding discussion addressed whether a tree preservation ordinance was anticipated to be incorporated as a part of the rewritten code; and whether there was a need to address farm animals in the zoning code (i.e., accessory structures to house them) or if the nuisance code was sufficient. Mr. Paschke noted the difficulty in defining tree preservation from various perspectives, and suggesting that this would probably be addressed through the landscape ordinance with components of preservation of existing trees or their replacement, given the difficulties in creating and enforcing a true tree preservation ordinance. Mr. Paschke advised that the City could attempt to protect the City’s tree investment in the code, but across-the-board enforcement was difficult, especially on private property. Commissioner Boerigter noted the need of a rewritten landscape ordinance to include the environmental component of the comprehensive plan to provide for and encourage alternative landscapes in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Paschke advised that at the January 2010 meeting, the consultant would be available for a broad and preliminary discussion of the location of specific zones; the format and content template for the new code; general details and discussions consistent with a ‘meet and greet” type of meeting, and talking about the next steps and preparation for the upcoming public open house as an introduction to the process. Discussion ensued on the proposed agenda for the January 2010 meeting and anticipated cases to be heard. Mr. Paschke advised that the Parks Department would present a brief update on the Park Planning process at the January Planning Commission meeting as it related to land use. 7. Adjourn Chair Doherty adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:40 p.m.