03-10-1998PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
March 10, 1998
7:00 p.m.
R . f tl
Discussion Topics
ITEM #1 PC Letter #13 1999 Capital Improvement Budget and 2000 -2004
Capital Improvement Program
Continued discussion with Steve Devich,
Administrative Services Director
ITEM #2 PC Letter #14 Airport Mitigation Strategy
Discussion of public process with Vivian Hart
ITEM #3 PC Letter #15 Consistency Between Zoning and the Comprehensive
Plan
Discussion of the issues with Jim Thomson,
Kennedy & Graven and Don Brauer,
Comprehensive Plan consultant
Adjournment
w ;>„
CITI' CAF
Planning Commission Letter
RICHFIELD February 24, 1998
Item #: 1
Letter #: 13
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Continuation of discussion of the Capital Improvement Program
CIP) and introductory discussion of the CIP process.
References: Richfield City Charter, Chapter 7.
ANALYSIS
Issues: Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director, will attend the study
session to answer questions and receive feedback from the
Commissioners on the CIP /CIB. The draft CIP /CIB was distributed
to Commissioners at the February meeting.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommended No official action is required at this time.
Action:
Basis: The Planning Commission is required by City Charter to prepare and
recommend a Capital Improvement Program for inclusion in the
Annual Budget Message of the City Council.
Planning Commission Letter
Item #: 2
Letter #: 14
March 10, 1998
BACKGROUND
Proposal: Vivian Hart (see attached bio) will talk to the Commission about her role in the
airport mitigation strategy and ways to bring the discussion out to the
community. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has postponed the release
of the final Environmental Impact Statement until June or July. The
Commission should plan to begin bringing the issues to the public in March, if
possible.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: The Commission is asked to provide feedback on possible strategies for
conveying the airport mitigation strategy to residents and motivating
them to become involved in the strategy.
02/09/1998 12:34 6124576120 HART AN PAGE 02
Bio of Vivian Hart
As both a citizen volunteer and professional, Vivian has over 17 years of experience
working in local government. During this time, she has, among other activities,
lobbied during Minnesota legislative sessions, organized a 3 -state environmental
coalition and served as president of the St. Paul Downtown Airport Advisory
Council. Vivian worked on the organizing committee that formed neighborhood
organizations in West St. Paul and was chair of the first --the Lilly Lake
Neighborhood Association. She also served as a charter member of the City's
Neighborhood Development Advisory Board.
Previously, Vivian was employed as a communications specialist for a school
district, community organizer for the City of St. Paul and editor of several
publications, including Minnesota Monthly magazine. Most recently, she was a
program specialist for Government Training Service, an organization that provides
continuing education and training geared toward Minnesota government.
Currently, Vivian is a member of Neighborhoods USA, the International Association
of Facilitators, Society of Government Meeting Professionals, a board member of
Northern Dakota County Community Television, a citizen representative on W. St.
Paul's Community Liveability Team and chair of Make a Difference Committee - -a
community -wide effort to raise awareness about domestic violence in northern
Dakota County. Vivian is a recent participant in the Violence Prevention Initiative
of the Dakota County Partnership for Healthy Communities, in Dakota County's
Asset - Building Initiative for Youth and a member of the League of Minnesota Cities
Improving Community Life Committee.
Participatory government has been the main topic of presentations given recently by
Vivian at the Neighborhoods USA Conference in Albany, N.Y., League of
Minnesota Cities Annual Conference and the Minnesota Community Policing
Symposium.
Vivian is a partner in Connections for Communities, a consulting firm which
specializes in information and presentations about community building, partnerships
and neighborhood involvement.
gaM Planning Commission Letter
Item #: 3
Letter #: 15
March 10, 1998
BACKGROUND
Issues: The issue of consistency between Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations
was raised at the Planning Commission meeting on February 24, 1998.
Although this topic is relevant to the day care proposal for 1100 East 66th
Street, it is an issue that needs to be addressed for the City as a whole. With
the amount of potential change anticipated in the new Comp Plan it will be an
issue the Planning Commission will likely be faced with often.
There is a considerable amount of disagreement on the consistency issue in the
planning and legal community. In 1995, the Legislature passed language that
states that in cases of conflict between a City's Comprehensive Plan and its
zoning, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the Plan.
Up until that time, in cases of conflict, the zoning superseded the Plan. The
current language directs cities to bring their zoning into conformance with their
Comprehensive Plan by the end of 1998.
This directive, if literally applied, will create considerable problems in fully
developed communities where the Comprehensive Plan envisions substantial
land use changes. A survey of other fully developed communities indicates that
there is disagreement with the language change. The planning staffs of seven
of twelve communities surveyed are dissatisfied with the current language and
believe that it should not have been changed.
Part of the reason for the confusion is that the previous language specifically
stated that in cases of conflict, the zoning superseded the Plan. The current
language does not say the Plan supersedes, it simply says the zoning ordinance
shall be brought into conformance with the Plan. The question is, what
constitutes conformance?
The City's Comprehensive Plan, which was approved by the Metropolitan
Council, includes the following language regarding the consistency issue:
The City does not intend to rezone currently inconsistent sites to
conform to the Plan proposals. This rezoning would create a plethora
of non - conforming use situations that compromise, at least, and
seriously hurt, at worst, current owners and occupants without good
purpose. Specific sites will be rezoned as a result of a participatory and
logical redevelopment planning process for each specific area as the
opportunity presents itself.
The first paragraph of the Implementation chapter (Volume 4), also addresses
this issue directly. It reads:
For this reason, the plan is focused on concepts that are described as
goals and objectives. The subarea plans are looked upon as examples
of how those areas of the City might (emphasis added) be developed by
applying those goals and objectives, rather than the typical view of the
Plan as a "blue print" for development.
The "disclaimer" language in these two paragraphs is critical to understanding,
interpreting and using the new Comprehensive Plan. In making decisions
involving apparent conflicts, the Planning Commission must weigh the merits
of each proposal against both the Subarea Plans as well as this language. It is
staffs opinion that in many cases this language will and should be the basis
upon which a decision is made. Such decisions, when made, should be
considered to be in conformance with the Plan. It will not always be possible,
or even desirable, to insist that every proposal which comes before the
commission mirror the vision put forth for a particular Subarea Plan. Such
literal interpretation could result in the Comprehensive Plan becoming an
obstacle to change rather than a tool for it.
The new Plan has been in effect for about six months now and has already
served the City quite well. It is the basis for the Interchange West
redevelopment study, the Airport Mitigation Strategy, the Richfield Lake
Planning Process and the recent I -494 development moratorium and
subsequent rezonings.
In the case of I -494, it was a proposed industrial use, allowed by zoning but
inconsistent with the Comp Plan, that prompted a moratorium for most of the
corridor. The Comp Plan calls for the eventual elimination of industrial zoning,
so staff felt it was appropriate to review the entire area, not just the site in
question, and make zoning changes based on the Comprehensive Plan.
Because of the Comp Plan goals and the Subarea Plans, industrial zoning along
I -494 will be phased out. However, it may not be possible to correct all
potential inconsistencies. In those instances the existing zoning may need to be
respected.
A zoning map of the Penn Avenue and 66th Street area is attached. The
attachment illustrates some examples of where the Comprehensive Plan
designation and the zoning conflict and the problems that could occur if the
properties were rezoned.
Proposal: Given the issue raised by the day care proposal, staff recommends that the City
undertake the following strategy:
I . The City will undertake a study of all properties that have zoning
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Commission may or may not want to recommend that the Council
consider a moratorium on development during the study period.
3. Staff recommends that the Commission proceed with its review of the day
care proposal; however, that parcel would also be included in the study.
4. Staff will prepare an inventory of all properties that have zoning
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission will
begin reviewing this inventory at its May study session.
5. The Commission may recommend certain rezonings following its review.
6. The Commission may recommend certain changes to the Comprehensive
Plan and /or the Zoning Ordinance following its review. Possible changes
include:
Zoning Ordinance: Treat day cares as conditional uses in residential
districts, similar to schools and churches (day cares are currently only
allowable as accessory uses in residential districts).
Zoning Ordinance: Clarify the language that gives the bases for
approving a conditional use permit, specifically as it relates to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Comprehensive Plan: Strengthen the "disclaimer" language in the
Implementation section as to why the City chooses to rezone or not
rezone certain properties. Clarify how the Plan and its Guide Plan are
to be used in reviewing zoning applications.
Jim Thomson, Kennedy & Graven, and Don Brauer, Comprehensive Plan
consultant, will attend the study session to provide further guidance to the
Commission on this issue. Mr. Thomson will also review the role of the
Planning Commission and the discretion it has in recommending approval or
denial of zoning applications.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the issues and provide
direction to staff regarding further study.
1111111111
IIIIIIIIIIS
millilt