01-20-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the Commission. Mattila said that the Commission must consider the current proposal. The Commission can put language in their recommendation that would suggest that they would support a senior coop facility. Schiferl asked Mattila if the drainage issue could be a separate issue. Is drainage a private issue between G & P and the neighboring residents? Mattila said the City Attorney advised drainage is a civil matter between the property owners unless the City Council decides to get involved in the issue. Gregori said that, from the Council’s standpoint, the Planning Commission has to vote on the recommendation on the current proposal, which includes both facilities. The Council would appreciate any further recommendations the Planning Commission may have on the matter. Knuth asked if the Commission could vote on the applicant’s current proposal and then make a statement encouraging the applicant to resubmit the coop portion of the proposal. Baker answered affirmatively. LP-331,PRD-59-258. Motion by Knuth, seconded by Livingston, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF AND PL Zisla said the reason he asked about procedure earlier is that he wondered if the ordinance precludes the developer from coming back with part of his proposal after the Commission recommends denial. Mattila said there is no time frame where a developer cannot make a proposal after a proposal has been denied. A developer can reconfigure a proposal and bring it forward in another form anytime. For example, if they bring back the coop proposal as a separate proposal, that would be an entirely different application. Zisla asked how long the developer has to wait before bringing the coop proposal before the Commission. Mattila said there is no time limit. The only time limit would be that, if the City Council were to approve the application, the developer has six months to pull the building permit. If they do not pull the building permit in six months, the application expires. Baker called for a vote on the motion. 6 Ayes - 1 Nay (Zisla). Motion Carried. Motion by Knuth, seconded by O’Brien, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE DEVELOPER RESUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THE SENIOR COOP FACILITY ADDRESSING THE ISSUES BROUGHT FORWARD BY PC. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. RESIDENTS AT THE LAST TWO LANNING OMMISSION MEETINGS AU NNOUNCEMENTS AND PDATES I-35W Corridor Comprehensive Planning Update Mattila updated the Commission on the efforts of the I-35W Coalition which comprises Community Development Directors represented those seven northern metro Cities that border on I-35W. Essentially, the coalition is working to prepare a unified comprehensive plan for the northern metro I-35W corridor. The coalition is working with the Design Center to accomplish this task. The Design Center has asked each coalition member to set up a time when the Design Center can update each City’s Planning Commission on the status of this joint planning effort. The Design Center would like to meet with the New Brighton Planning Commission at their February 17, 1998, meeting. Baker said he was looking forward to the presentation. Joann Knuth The Commission members wished Commissioner Knuth the best of luck in all future endeavors and commented on what a pleasure it was to have Joann on the Commission. The Commission told Joann she will be missed. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\01-20-98.WPD 14