11-19-96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved Blomquist said he agreed with Zisla and Baker that an ordinance should not be changed to fit a particular use. The variance approach makes sense. Zisla said it was unlikely New Brighton would be the site of other reservoirs as opposed to generalized public institutions. Mattila said he had presented these arguments to the City Attorney. Mattila suggested the Planning Commission put their thoughts in a motion to the City Council for next Tuesday’s meeting. Zisla commented the 40% floor-area ratio was only a 10% variation. Lowell Johnson, 135 Stinson Boulevard, said he was puzzled by the percentages. Do they include both the old reservoir and the new reservoir? Baker answered the old and the new combined would come up to the 33%. Baker said he would like to go back to the traffic issue. It was the Planning Commission’s recommendation that we use Options 1, 2, and 3 of the five proposed traffic options. Kramer responded the proposal was made after the discussion by the Planning Commission of not routing traffic through New Brighton. Kramer said, when he was asked earlier, his comments were taken out of context from the minutes. Kramer stated that the route through New Brighton was not an option. Baker asked for a recommendation to the City Council. Zisla said the Planning Commission submitted a resolution from its October meeting. Baker asked if the Planning Commission should make a recommendation about the floor-area ratio. Zisla said he was not sure a resolution was appropriate before the City Attorney finishes his opinion on the floor-area ratio problem. ZO, Motion by Blomquist, seconded by Baker, THAT INSTEAD OF CHANGING THE ONING RDINANCE THE CCMWW. ITY OUNCIL CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL BY THE INNEAPOLIS ATER ORKS AS A VARIANCE Zisla suggested adding the language, or consider the refining the floor-area ratio for type of structure in the current Zoning Ordinance. Baker said he would rather not modify the language of the motion. Blomquist agreed with Baker. Ingvaldson asked if any consideration has been given to the property owners on Stinson Boulevard in Columbia Heights as far as their property values is concerned. There are some nice woods on the site now. After this project is done, there will be a big thing facing Columbia Heights. Baker said the New Brighton Planning Commission did not consider any property values. The Planning Commission considers land uses not property values. Ingvaldson stated New Brighton does not care about the neighbors of the Water Works. Baker responded said the Planning Commission cannot prohibit a landowner from using their property. Baker said over the years the Planning Commission has heard opposition to proposals for vacant property because the neighbors want trees on the vacant property, not structures. The Planning Commission cannot tell a property owner that he must preserve his property for the enjoyment of the neighbors. A property owner has the right to develop his property within the limits of the Zoning Ordinance. Kramer said he would like to comment on the hauling routes. Route 2 is Columbia Heights. Route 5 went through New Brighton. Routes 1, 2, and 3 have been mentioned this evening and are all in Columbia Heights. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1996\11-19-96.WPD 6