2010-08-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 04, 2010 Page 14 Member Gottfried paraphrased Mr. Paschke’s comments, indicating that the 652 performance standards were moved to a different section of the new code to 653 provide a broader effect across all uses. 654 Mr. Grefenberg opined that this was a good reason that it would prove useful to 655 have an Open House on these critical issues. 656 Mr. Paschke advised that, at this point, there was no plan to hold another open 657 house, but to work through plan approval for certain sections as previously 658 outlined. Mr. Paschke noted that, while there was nothing preventing another 659 open house, the regulations were still being developed as part of the process and 660 were not available yet even in draft form for review by the Planning Commission 661 and/or City Council. Mr. Paschke advised that those regulations would be 662 followed by the definitions as developed; and that given the current timeframe, 663 there were other minor chapters that may not be available for review until 2011. 664 Mr. Paschke advised that for those chapters, the current code would continue to 665 apply in the interim, specifically the recently-developed sign ordinance; with the 666 current shoreland ordinance in place pending completion by the Department of 667 Natural Resources (DNR) on their new requirements for subsequent 668 development by the City of their parallel code. Mr. Paschke advised that the 669 current work schedule, as previously presented and approved, would allow the 670 major portion of the City’s zoning code to be consistent with its updated 671 Comprehensive Plan within the nine (9) month timeframe mandated by the 672 Metropolitan Council. 673 Chair Doherty concurred with Mr. Paschke, opining that it was good to initially 674 establish the broad categories, then deal with the specifics, rather than to have 675 specifics rule the process and prevent accomplishment of the broader goal. 676 Chair Doherty expounded on the benefits of a public hearing, similar to that being 677 held tonight, being televised and available in various formats to reach a larger 678 audience as opposed to an open house that may only be sporadically attended. 679 Chair Doherty opined that, from his perspective, it was much more transparent 680 to hold a public hearing creating a public record, rather than an open house 681 attended by a few citizens who may or may not only represent a small portion of 682 the community, with the full discussion available for all citizens to hear and view. 683 Mr. Grefenberg recognized Chair Doherty’s perspective; however, opined that 684 the process could be changed in a democracy, and the review period was not set 685 in stone; and questioned comments alluding to no changes being possible at this 686 point. 687 Chair Doherty and Mr. Paschke both stipulated that their comments were not 688 intended to create any misconceptions by Mr. Grefenberg that changes were no 689 longer acceptable. 690 Mr. Grefenberg opined that the climate in the community had been polluted with 691 distrust related to the asphalt plant, and further opined that government is no 692 longer trusted; and assured Commissioners that he was simply attempting to get 693 a dialogue going. Mr. Grefenberg opined that, back in the neighborhoods, there 694 was not credibility in decisions being made by governmental bodies, especially 695 those decisions impacting residential neighborhoods. Mr. Grefenberg expressed 696 appreciation that tonight’s public record would show that an asphalt plan would 697 be considered as a permitted use under the proposed code, as well as the old, 698 only as a Conditional Use, and that such a provision would address his initially 699 expressed concerns tonight. 700 Chair Doherty observed that Mr. Grefenberg’s comments seemed to be focusing 701 on the proposed asphalt plant; and reminded all that that application had not 702 worked its way through the system yet, and was not currently before the 703