2010-08-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 04, 2010 Page 19 unaware of the proposed plant, further opining that no one along Terminal Road 907 to whom she had talked was happy about the potential plant being allowed. Ms. 908 Ternes noted the need to notify tenants, not just property owners of record since 909 many of those property owners were based at national or international corporate 910 offices and not cognizant of how this plant could impact the local tenants. 911 Mr. Paschke reiterated that staff provided notice by a distinctive process in City 912 Code, within the policy as established by the City Council, to property owners 913 within 500’ of the subject property, with State Statute requiring even less notice 914 than that. Mr. Paschke reminded listeners that the City was not proposing the 915 asphalt plant. 916 Chair Doherty suggested that the tenants send their e-mail or written comments 917 to City Hall or the City’s website for distribution by staff to Councilmembers and 918 other parties identified as recipients by the sender. 919 Mr. Paschke, in focusing on the concerns of Ms. Ternes regarding notification of 920 existing tenants and current versus proposed land use designations, noted that 921 two events were happening: today’s use by tenants, and the Comprehensive 922 Plan’s guidance for future use that may be different than the existing use. Mr. 923 Paschke noted that this did not mean that existing uses could not continue as 924 legal, nonconforming uses, until sold or the business was no longer in existence. 925 Mr. Paschke advised that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code were 926 consistent in guiding the land use designation to Office or Business Park, and 927 were designed with that goal in mind, not necessarily based on existing uses on 928 any given parcel. 929 Ms. Ternes questioned if there would be a change in property taxes due to this 930 proposed zoning change. 931 Mr. Paschke clarified that the taxes were based on commercial tax rates 932 established by Ramsey County, not a specific use. 933 Ms. Ternes opined that even with a berm around her property, there was no way 934 to shield an asphalt plant. 935 Mr. Lloyd noted that the focus of tonight’s discussion was not about the asphalt 936 plant, and that this issue was not coming before the Planning Commission again, 937 but once the MPCA had made their ruling it would go directly to the City Council 938 for final action. Mr. Lloyd clarified that e-mails to the Planning Commission would 939 therefore not be as effective as if they were directed to the City Council as the 940 final decision-makers. 941 Ms. Ternes opined that this rezoning issue is hard to understand, and coming 942 before the body was intimidating, and further opined that a business owner 943 needed a lawyer to protect their interests or to speak directly to the Commission 944 on this issue, and suggested that this may preclude some people coming to 945 speak. 946 Further discussion included staff responding to and clarifying for Ms. Ternes the 947 purpose and goals of the proposed condensation of current versus proposed 948 zoning codes for Business and Industrial Districts; and standards remaining in 949 place, with some revisions to make it more enforceable; however, Mr. Paschke 950 noted that environmental standards are in the current code as well as the 951 proposed, once the regulations and standards are fully developed and brought 952 forward this fall for review and public hearing. 953 Additional discussion included industrial uses and zoning districts; chemical uses 954 currently allowed; production or manufacture of chemicals versus use of those 955 chemicals; clarification of uses on the Table of Uses; and safeguards in place. 956