09-21-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved Minutes New Brighton Planning Commission Regular Meeting - September 21, 1999 7:30 p.m. Call to Order Larry Baker, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Larry Baker, Mike Livingston, Jim O’Brien, Norm Schiferl , , Paul Zisla David Schmitz Absent: Jeff Schopf : Also Present Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development Cary Teague, City Planner Steve Larson, City Council Liaison Approval of Minutes A17,1999, Motion by Livingston, seconded by Zisla, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE UGUST PC. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. LANNING OMMISSION MEETING Agenda Review Baker commented the agenda had been amended prior to the meeting. Public Hearings Comprehensive Plan Amendment (continued) City of New Brighton Teague suggested the Commission review the items on which the Planning Commission suggested changes. Teague stated that the Planning Commission’s goal for this meeting was to recommend that the City Council approve the plan. The formal presentation of the Plan will be made at the next Council meeting. Teague referred to the agenda packet and reviewed the changes to the Plan. Zisla referred to Page 5.13, Policy #5. The language is uncertain and unclear. The wording should be changed to “encourage.” Page 5.16, Policy #1, refers to “alternative” energy sources–alternative to what? The policy should be rewritten and made clearer. Teague stated the intent of the language was to encourage solar energy. The policy is a requirement of the Met Council. Zisla asked if Statute required such language. Teague responded negatively. The policy in the Met Council Planning Handbook states that cities should consider solar access. It is not mandated that cities must pass an ordinance to ensure solar access. Zisla said the City could consider the policy and decide against it. Baker suggested that Policy #2 should also be changed to “encourage.” Schiferl referred to Page 5.13. Schiferl stated the City should not be involved in encouraging compliance with Met Council regulations. Schiferl said he felt that language should be eliminated; “encourage” is too weak a word. Schiferl referred to the discussion from the August meeting on 5.12, Policy 2. Schiferl stated the policy should stand. Schiferl commented that the definition of “spot zoning” could have been the reason the Commission had a problem with the policy. Schiferl stated he liked the concept of that item. Baker stated he liked the idea of discouraging “spot zoning.” The wording was “disallow,” which implies a direct and specific I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\09-21-99.WPD