1990-09-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Council Meeting Minutes September 25, 1990 Page 4 Council Business, continued Brandt Rebelein asked about the Commission's feelings regarding a more flexible approach for the site's development and their thoughts on mixed commercial uses. Mattila said a few commissioners had reversed their original opinion and now feel the property is not appropriate for a corporate campus. He noted the Commission feels it is more appropriate to amend the plan in conjunction with a specific proposal than to relinquish any control or flexibility on the property. Amending of the plan's text requires adoption by the Planning Commission and Council and a 60 day review process by Metropolitan Council. Amending of the future land use map requires the same procedures, but a 90 day review process is required by Metropolitan Council. Brandt Rebelein noted that Council is only considering changes to the plan's language, and no changes will be made to the future land use map. I Mattila said redesignation of a property on the future land use map requires rezoning of that property so that the ordinance and plan fit hand in glove. If the plan's text was changed to include mixed commercial or corporate campus uses, the future land use map does not need to be changed. Brandt Rebelein asked if the new language may cause developers to misinterpret and view it as a guarantee of Council approval. Mattila acknowledged that the Commission expressed this concern, but added that the redesignation only refers to possible future uses on a certain property and is not a commitment to a specific land use. Williams would not endorse amending the plan for a specific development. He feels the plan is a visionary and flexible document and incorporates a range of possibilities for a portion of land. Leaving out corporate headquarters or commercial uses is not a guarantee that this development type would never be considered. He feels Mattila's language suggestions are excellent and provide guidance, but does not rule out possibilities. He added that the zoning ordinance provides needed protection to the City. I Dick Grones, Cambridge Group, said he agrees the plan should be viewed as a visionary document, and noted that Metropolitan Council's procedural process can create untimely project delays. Therefore, he would like to see the proposed language inserted into the plan now versus later. Brandt Rebele;n feels a restaurant would not be a suitable commercial use for the area because of appearance and increased traffic levels. Council Business Adoption of Updated Comprehensive Plan Report 90-208 Resolution 90-081