08-17-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

establishments” should be removed under the definition of Limited Business because of the traffic generated. Baker agreed with Zisla. Zisla stated he is not comfortable with the definitions of “spot zoning” and “strip zoning.” If an area is not designated for commercial use by the Comprehensive Plan, then it would not be zoned for commercial use. The definitions should be rephrased. Baker referred to page 5.16, under solar access protection. The verbiage may sound good, but how can the Planning Commission administer such an item. For example, if Dairy Queen had a solar panel on the roof, would that have precluded SuperAmerica from building where it did? The SuperAmerica proposal complied with the Code. Teague responded that SuperAmerica’s proposal would still comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Baker stated it seems like bad planning to include a requirement in the Comprehensive Plan that cannot be administered. Scheib asked if Baker was saying solar panels are not allowed. Baker stated the item calls for “protection of existing solar collectors.” How can these collectors be protected without a strict ordinance? Baker stated the City is trying to get higher density in some areas; this item is not compatible with that goal. Scheib stated the issue is a site planning issue. Zisla stated then, in effect, no building can be south of another building. Baker agreed with Zisla. Scheib stated that is not the intent of the item. The Planning Commission would look at distance and angle of sunlight during the site planning process. Zisla stated that this item could be construed as a policy that creates shade easements. Baker asked what would have happened if Dairy Queen had put a solar panel in the ground next to their building. Would that have forced SuperAmerica to build 50 feet from the lot line? The Comprehensive Plan could be used as a tool to block development. Scheib stated he did not believe this policy would restrict development. Baker stated he objected to the wording of the item. It is too strong. Scheib agreed with Baker. Delaune stated he would rather look at points 1, 2, and 3 together. No 1 says “protect” and No. 3 says “prohibit.” Baker stated that, as a member of the Planning Commission for the last twenty years, this language will be used by those who wish to block development. This is very firm language. The language has to be lightened to serve as a guide and not to prohibit development. Zisla stated he did not believe the Council should adopt the Plan with Item #3 included, unless a demonstration with the appropriate models is included. If the Council wants a recommendation from the Planning Commission to adopt the Comprehensive Plan as the law of the community, Zisla stated he would be absolutely against it. This item should not be adopted unless it can be shown not to have an adverse effect on development. Baker referred to 6.11, which talks about in-fill development, “encourage housing development on underutilized, undeveloped, or skipped over lots.” Baker stated that the development on Old Highway 8 that replaced older houses with new townhomes would not be “consistent with the style and type of housing in the surrounding neighborhood.” That development was a positive development, but would not fit with the language of 6.11. Scheib stated that the policy outlined in 6.11 is a general, conceptual guide that is flexible and leaves room for interpretation. The policies in the Comprehensive Plan are meant to be general. The statement in 6.11 is simply to encourage consistency with the housing styles. What that means is open to interpretation. The zoning ordinance is the “law.” Scheib stated the Comprehensive Plan is meant to be a general, visionary guide. Hoisington Koegler may have been too specific in certain areas, such as the solar access point. Zisla stated that Minnesota law clearly states that when an applicant comes in for a conditional use permit the applicant must meet the criteria outlined in the Planning Commission’s finding. For example, if the Planning I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\08-17-99.WPD 5