Loading...
1989-05-30� 3� . r. - } CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP OF CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND PARKS COMMISSION MAY 30, 1989 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Agenda Adoption. 4. Review of Executive Summary from April 15 Teambuildi Workshop a. General comments and discussion � Review of updated list of target issues (pgs. 3 i. Should some issues be consolidated? ii. Do we still agree with these priorities? iii. Whose votes count? Council only? Everyon ? iv. Limiting the number of "highest" priority issues 5. Processing of Planning Cases a. Review and comment on staff drafted application materials, checklists, etc. b. Thoughts on criteria for when cases should be referred to the Parks Commission 6. Communication and Information Flow Regarding Plann Cases a. Adm. Assist. snynopsis of bi-weekly planning appointments (distributed with Friday News) b. Staff liaison to Planning and Parks Commissions c. � 4) . Attendance by Planning and Parks Commissioners a City Council meetings Need for periodic workshops (regularly scheduled.) meetings between Council and Planning Commission to discuss and review pending development propos ls Concerns that should be addressed: open meeting law requirements, role confusion, commitment to at end, due process (i.e. notice to and participation y applicants) � 7. Fu�ther Discussion on Additional Steps (i.e. additional me tings) to Address any other "Highest Priority" Issues 8. Bu Tour? 9. Ot er Business. 10. Adlourn. C� Y CITY OF MEND4TA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: MAYOR CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSTON PARKS COMMISSION FROM: KEVIN D. FRAZELL, CTTY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: Information for May 30 Joint Warkshop Meeting DATE: May 24, 1989 INTRODUCTION The Mayor, City Cauncil, Planninq and Parks Commissions i be meeting in workshop se�sion this coming Tuesaay, May . at ?:OOpm in the City Hall. The purpose of the warkshap to discuss followup actions as a resul.t af our Saturday,' April 15 Team Building Workshop. BACKGROUND The Council and twa Commissions met all day an Saturday, April 15 with Consultant Don Salverda to disctzss progres City target is�ues, and interactians and roles between t two Cornmissions. The executive summary of that workshop prepared by our Consultant and edited by City Staff, is attached for your revi�w. z 30, is on e as A number of issues were raised at the April 15 warkshop, and directives given to Staff for implementing particular ch nge and procedures. The purpase of this May 30 workshop wil be to: 1) review the results of the April 15 workshop 2) finalize a list of priarity target issues which will the City work program �ar the next couple of years 3� discuss some particular Staff proposals far better coordinating the flow oi information regarding planni issues 4) discussion of any further follawup actions Council or Commissioners wish to take in order ta implement impartant Ca.ty priorities. - 1 - ers . � r THE AGENDA Attached is a proposed agenda for the workshop. A brief discussion of each enumerated agenda item follows. 4. 5. REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE SUNIl�IARY FROM APRIL 15 TEAM WORKSHOP The Executive Summary is attached for your review. Council or Commission members may have general comme or items of discussion that are provoked by reading summary. Pages three and four of the summary are group's listing of 31 important City issues, grouped by leve priority. The City Council has been adopting a list priority target issues for the past four years. It i very useful to the Staff and City officials in decid where we will put the highest level of effort. At the April 15 workshop, all attendees were given t opportunity to vote on their highest priority issues Pages three and four of the Executive Summary now gi you the breakdown of that prioritization, and we wil want to discuss whether, in fact, the resulting list reflects the issues that are of most importance to u In the past, the City Staff has had some input in suggesting and arguing for priorities. However, the final ranking was based on Council votes only. One the things that we will need to discuss is whether o the priorities should be ranked by the Council only. Obviously, there would be some change in the listing ranking if we were to use that method. It appears that some of the issues could be consoli and we may want to do that before proceeding with a ranking. Also, in the past, we have always limited ourselves to no more than seven issues in each of t: priority groupings, so it would be useful to move o the "highest" priority issues into the "high" categ PROCESSING OF PLANNING CASES Much of our discussion on April 15 centered around planning cases, and how they are processed. This is one of our highest priority projects. It is one thai have been working on for a couple of years now, but � has suffered from lack of attention in the press of c City business; Staff is trying to address that by gei on with implementing some new procedures. - 2 - t of of f not and ted, inal of also we hich ther ting Attached you will find proposed planning application materials as drafted by Staff. These include more definitive checklists, and instructions to the appli consistent with both the existing City zoning ordina and the proposed rewrite of the zoning ordinance as previously directed by Council and the Planning Commission. We would like our reactions, feedback, input. The attached materials are a"prototype" for variances, and if you approve of the format, we will develop simlar materials for subdivision, rezonings, nts e, and etc. An additional issue which was raised at the April 15 workshop was to formalize the referral of planning c ses to the Parks Commission for its consideration and recommendation to the Planning Commission and Counci . You will notice that this is included as an optional step in the attached application materials. Obvious y, not all planning cases involve parks issues, and it ould be unnecessary to send those to the Parks Commission � However, we may want to set some criteria, i.e. size of development, where parks issues are identified in th City Comprehensive Plan, etc. 6. COMMIJNICATION AND INFORMATION FLOW REGARDING CASES There was also a great deal of discussion on April 1! about how the Council and two Commissions can stay informed of each others actions, and convey areas of concern to one another. The first thing that was asked was for Staff to communicate issues being considered in the biweekly planning consultant meetings, so that everyone is "f� warned" of issues coming up. We have already begun � with the synopsis which is prepared by Administrativ� Assistant Kevin Batchelder and attached to the Frida, News. � Second issue was coordination of the Staff liaison t� Planning and Parks Commissions. The current plan is Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder will be providing Staff support to both Commissions, so this should help resolve much of the problem of lack of coordination. A suggestion was made that Planning and Parks Commissioners attend City Council meetings to answer Council questions. It has been my observation (in Mendota Heights and in other cities) that a commitme� always have a Planning or Parks Commissioner at ever� City Council meeting becomes over-burdensome, and consequently it soon falls by the way. A suggested alternative would be that whenever the Planning - 3 - t � the that it to Commission or Parks Commission is making to the City Council, that they select one members to attend that particular Council answer questions. a of their o meeting to A final "communication" issue which was discussed on April 15 was whether or not there needs to be more periodic opportunity for Planning Commissioners, Par Commissioners, and Council members to interact regar specific development proposals. One suggestion was we set aside one early morning per month when intere Council members and Commissioners could "drop by" to converse with each other and Staff about pending development proposals. After thinking a little more on that, I am convinced it is a legal and logistical "mine field" that we sh avoid. Some of my concerns are itemized on the agen and I can elaborate on those at the meeting. Person I think that some of the frustrations that led to th discussion could be resolved by updating the Comprehensive Plan, getting our new ordinances in pl and our new checklists and procedures adopted. Howe� if the Council and Commissions continue to feel the : for a periodic get-together, those should probably b� established as formal meetings. 7. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL STEPS TO ADDRESS OTHER HIGHEST PRIORITY ISSUES The final attachment is the first page of City's c "target issues". As you can see, we not only list issues, but highlight some of the steps that need taken to resolve the issue. �tion t d that u � lly, d nt tolbe Once the new priority list is agreed to and establis Staff will produce a more complete form that lists s of these incremental steps. The purpose in scheduli this on the agenda is to give everyone an opportunit comment on specific steps they believe should be highlighted under any of the priority issues. In particular, you will want to think about where addit joint meetings between the Council and Commissions m advisable. 8. BUS TOUR? Some mention was another bus tou discuss whether summer, and if s KDF:jak Attachments made on April 15 r of the community. they in fact wish o, select a couple - 4 - about the desire t� The group should to do a bus tour tl of potential date: [3•7 onal y be is CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1989 TEAM BUILDING WORKSHOP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City Council, City Administrator, and Parks & P1 Commissions met to hold their 1989 Team Building Woz Saturday, April 15 in the Mendota Heights City Hall. The Facilitator for the Workshop was Don Salverda, Pres of Attitude Development Consultants. , The primary objectives of the Workshop were to: 1) To review progress made during 1988. 2) To enhance communication between Council members, Professional Staff, and Commission members. 3) To surface, discuss and hopefully resolve problem a� 4) To develop renewed esprit de corps between Council, Professional Staff, and Commission members. 5) To discuss and redefine the roles of Council member: Professional Staff, and Commission members. 6) To develop updated consensus on major issues facing City. 7) To fine tune participants leadership skills. 8) To challenge and inspire participants. 9) To be an enjoyable day. This report summarizes the results of the retreat. REVIEW OF PROGRESS MADE DURING PREVIOUS YEAR The Council, Staff and Commission members made during the previous year(s) on target City. Following is a rating of perceived issue on a scale of 10 - High, 1- Low. ISSUE 1. Park Development 2. Southeast Area Plan Development 3. City Hall 4. 110/Dodd Area Redevelopment 5. Airport Noise 6. Highway 55 Corridor Study 7. Zoning Code Amendments 8. Infrastructure Replacement Policy 9. Street Lighting/Sidewalk Policy 10. Commissions 11. Financial Management 12. Drainage Ditch and Holding Ponds 13. MSA Street Program 14. Economic Development 15. Sanitary Sewers _� � t :� the reviewed progr ss issues facing the progress on AVERAGE 5.3 7.7 9.7 4.0 4.7 6.7 4.7 5.7 3.7 8.0 6.5 5.0 8.7 5.5 8.7 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Use of "Garron" Site Highway 110/Lexington Intersection City Image Recreation Program MAC Property 5ale & Use City Code Codification MIS Review St. Paul Water Agreement Tax Increment District Council/Staff/Commission Comparable Worth House Moving Ordinance Snow Plowing Relationship with Mendota Police Department Fee Schedules Cable Television Employee Benefits Workshop (Lilydale) Railroad Crossing in Industrial Park CDBG Proj ects Intersection Obstructions Senior Citizens Watershed Management Organizations Housing Policy 2.0 4.7 9.0 6.3 9.3 4.5 8.0 6.0 7.3 9.0 9.7 5.5 8.3 5.5 9.0 8.5 9.0 9.0 9.3 8.0 4.0 4.0 8.3 8.5 The group gave the City an overall performance rating of - 2 - I7.4. i UPDATE ON TARGET ISSUES FACING THE CITY Participants reviewed the previous target issues facing the added new issues. The following is a prioritized'list of 31 issues facing the City. HIGHEST PRIORITY (Number of votes listed in parenthesis) Highway 110/Lexington Intersection Airport Noise Highway 55 Corridor Study Park Development Updating of the Comprehensive Plan Long Range Park Plan Processing Development Applications 110/Dodd Area Development HIGH PRIORITY (7) Southeast Area Park Development (6) Use of "Garron" Site (6) Recreation Program (6) Regional Traffic Problems (5) Zoning Code Amendments (4) Tax Increment District LOWER PRIORITIES Infra-Structure Replacement Policy Street Lighting/Sidewalk Policy. Commissions Financial Management Economic Development House Moving Ordinance Fee Schedules Recycling Senior Citizens Housing Policy LOWEST PRIORITIES (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) KEY C - S - CM - Drainage Ditch and Holding Ponds Sanitary Sewers City Code Codification St. Paul Water Agreement Watershed Management Organizations Law Enforcement Organizations Education on Drugs Council Staff Commission - 3 - 5C 5C 5C 5C 2C 2C 3C 5C 3C 3C 2C 2C 1C 1C 2C 1C oc ZC OC 1C OC OC 1C OC 1S 1S 2S 2S 1S 1S 2S 2S OS OS 15 1S 2S 1S 1S OS os OS 1S OS OS OS OS OS 8CM 6CM 5CM 4CM 8CM 8CM 5CM 3CM 4CM 3CM 3CM 3CM 2CM 2CM OCM 1CM 2CM OCM OCM OCM 1CM 1CM OCM 1CM .ty and :urrent � The following were removed from the existing list of issues: 1 2 ,3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 City Hall MSA Street Program Elections Equipment Replacement City Image MAC Property Sale and Use MIS Review Council - Staff - Commission Retreat Comparable Worth Snow Plowing Relationship with Mendota (Lilydale) Police Department Cable Television Employee Benefits Railroad Crossing in Industrial Park CDBJ Proj ects Intersection Obstructions - 4 - 0 4 DISCUSSION ON TOP ISSUES FACING THE CITY The concensus of the group was to revise the original schedule for the day and to invest considerable time discussing the following highest priority issues. , 1) Park Development - Specifically the SE Area, Highway Garron Site and the overall Recreation Program. Discussion on concerns and sub-issues included: a) Review of upcoming referendum b) The need for park development as related to development c) The need to complete the Centex site d) The need for a Strategic Plan for park acquisiti and land use as relates to Parks & Recreation e) The need to purchase parcels in conjunction with Met Council f) The need to dialogue with the Highway Department regarding various properties g) The need to react to citizen group recommendatioY, h) The need for a long range plan for park acquisit: funding, etc. i) The need to review the City's Comprehensive Plan j) The need to meet again on this issue and to deve] concensus on a long range action plan The group agreed to the following steps: Step 1: Short term park planning - Jann Blesener, C of Citizen's Parks Review Committee Step 2: The total group will meet again to'continue discussion Step 3: The City must put greater emphasis on long parks and recreation planning 2) 110/149 Development Discussion on concerns and sub-issues included: a) Tenant & access problems b) The different options that the City has c) Highway 149 right-of-way to be turned over to t City d) The northeast part of the intersection e) The need to have a bus tour of the area f) The beaver problem g) The shopping center h) The need for better concensus on industrial development i) Paster Properties may develop the land j) There are many options to consider Concensus was to keep the options open, to wait Paster makes their move, and to explore various options with the State Highway Department. - 5 - 55 the on, ir il � Time did not allow for extensive discussion on the other priority issues: 3) The Highway 55 Corridor 4) The processing of development applications 5) Airport noise 6) Highway 110/Lexington REVIEW OF COUNCIL AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF Time was spent discussing in small groups what the Coun doing that they should not be doing and what they are n doing that they should be doing. Small group discussio were not shared with the entire group, nor documented. THE ROLE OF THE MAYOR, COUNCIL. CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND COMMISSIONS Time was spent reviewing the various roles of the • participants as prioritized at the 1988 Workshop (see Attachment #1). EVALUATION OF THE WORKSHOP Participants rated the workshop a 4.1 on a scale of 5 (excellent) and 1(poor). It was agreed that to further enhance communication, it is necessary to meet more ofte� a group to discuss major issues facing the City. REPORT WRITTEN BY DON SALVERDA, CONSULTANT edited by Kevin Frazell, City Administrator - 6 - 1 is as � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO To: MAYOR CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION PARKS COMMISSION From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistan Subject: Application Materials, Checklists and Documents for Planning Process Date: May 25, 1989 DISCUSSION For some time the planning process has been of some c both the policy makers and the staff here at Mendota The attempt here is to inj ect a more formal approach planning process and procedures. It is hoped that thi: will help to better define the roles of all the actors enhance the communication flow, improve the applications and guide the process better. The enclosed packet is basically a rewrite of a Proced that Howard Dahlgren's firm prepared for the City Heights in 1970. � We have used the Variance proc� "prototype" for your review. If you approve of the a would draft similar documents for each type of planni. i.e., subdivision, rezoning, CUP, etc. The envision� product would be a Procedures Manual with the sepera� available as handouts to applicants. The enclosed packet includes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Application for Consideration of Planning Request Addendum to Application - Checklist for a Variance Instructions for Completing the Application Instructions for Applicants Requesting a Variance Applicant Notification Form Handout describing roles of planning actors and tY of a public hearing. ACTION REOUESTED Review proposal and provide feedback and direction to ?rocedures ,oncern to Heights. ��in to the �� approach linvolved, ���submitted �es Manual E Mendota ure as a roach, we request, finished portions purpose ff. CITX Ok' M�NDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNfiY, MINI3ESOTA APPLICATIQN FOR CONSID�RATI4N OF PLANNING R�QU�ST Applicant Nome: Last First Address: Numl�er & Street City Telephone Number: Owner Name: Last FirsC Address: Number b Srreet, City 5treet Location of Property in Question: . Zegal Descript�on af Property: t Case No. Date of Applic�tion� S�ee Paid Znitial S ta te Ini,tial Zip Srate � Zip Type of RequesC: Rezoning Variance CandiC.ional Use Permit Condi�ional. ZJse Permit for P.II.D, riinor Conditional Use Permit � Subdivisioz� Approval Plan� Approval Wetlands Permit Other i 1 � Applicable City Ordinance NumUer Sectlon Present Zoning of Property: Present Use of Property: ' Proposed Zoning'of•Property: Proposed Use of Property: Number of people intended to live or work on premises: I l��reby declare that all statements made in ttiis request and on ttie additional material are true. Signature of Applicant Date Received by (title) T` ADDENDUM CHECRLIST FOR VARIANCE REOUESTS The following supportive documents or information submitted with the Application for Consideration oi Requests. Applicants should be familiar with Section the Zoning Ordinance which describes the supporting necessary for a Variance request. date submitted 5.5(2)a Site Development Plan Dimension Plan Landscape Plan 5.5(2)b 5.5 (2) c Grading Plan Curb Cut Approval shall be Planning 5.5(2) of documents INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FORM APPLICATION FOR CON3IDERATION OF PLANNING REO' GENERAL INFORMATION 1. If the application involves a Rezoning, Condit Permit, Planned Unit Development or Variance, the should become familiar with those provisions set Ordinance Number 401 as amended, entitled "Mendot Zoning Ordinance". A Wetlands Permit appli� detailed in Ordinance Number 402, entitled "A System Ordinance". The process for a Critical A7 is outlined in Ordinance Number 403, entitled "Crii Overlay District Ordinance". 2. TITLED: T .onal Use applicant forth in � Heights ation is Wetlands ea Review ical Area If the application involves a plat approval, the applicant should become familiar with those provisions set forth in Ordinance Number 301 as amended, entitled "Mendo a Heights Subdivision Ordinance". Copies of these ordinances may be purchased at �the front desk of City Hall. � Multiple requests related to the same parcel of pr perty may be handled with one application, i.e., a subdivision with variances. 3. Case number, fee paid and date filed should be fil: the Cashier, or any other authorized person cha accepting forms for the City Planning Commission. are to be paid where the applicant submits the forms and the required supportive documents. _ COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORM Applicant The person submitting the form and requesting act address street number, city and state refer: applicant's mailing address. '.ed out by �Irged with The fees I,completed on. The to the Owner The person actually holding the title to the pr perty in question; it does not refer to a contract buyer, renter or lessee. If same as applicant, merely write same. Address refers to the owner mailing address. Street location of property Refers to the street name and number. If the p� undeveloped, the number may be obtained from Engineering Department. 'operty is the City :;. Leqal Description of Property The lot number, block number and name of the subdi� if unplatted, the metes and bounds description or � �land survey as recorded. This information may be from the Dakota County Tax Information Center (43f ' City Hall (452-1850). Type of Request Indicate by applied for, ision, or obtained -4576) or check (�/) or (x) the type(s) of reques�(s) being, if "other" describe in space provided Applicable City Ordinance Number and Section Refers to those applicable sections in the Zoning Number 401 or the Subdivision Ordinance Number 301. Present zoninq of Property The specific zoning district in which the prc question is located. ' Present Use of Property Fill in the existing land use, i.e., Single Residential, Office Building, Agricultural, etc. Proposed Zoninq of Property This section only applies to rezoning applications. Proposed Use of Property State the specific use or improvement intended property in question. Ordinance erty in Family, for the Number of people intended to live or work on premises State the number of people intended to live o work on premises. If the application involves multip e family dwelling structures, indicate the total number o dwelling units. CHECRLIST FORM Complete the Application Addendum Checklist by indica ing which supportive documents you have submitted to comply with the applicable Ordinances. The City has available Instructions for Applicants Planning Considerations for each type of planni possible. These instructions should be used to put to planning request package. uesting request er your � ., , �- ` �. INSTRUCTION3 FOR APPLICANTS REQUESTING A GENERAL INFORMATION The applicant should become familiar with the provi ions set forth in Ordinance Number 401, Section 5.5 as amended entitled City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance". The applicant shall obtain the following informationlfrom the City: a. Application for Consideration of Planning Re est b. Application Addendum - Variance Checklist c. Instructions for Completing the Application REQUIRED MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED Applications will be scheduled for consideration by Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. An application for a variance shall be filed with the ity. The applicant shall submit 15 copies (one signed) of the a plication along with the completed checklist and the following upportive documents: a. A sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements, aving an influence upon the variance request. � c. If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contour shall be submitted. A statement of the exceptional conditions and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed s a basis for a variance. d. If the application involves a cutting of a urb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the appli ant shall have the plan approved by the city's Pub ic Works Director. PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATIONS FOR VARIANCE REOUESTS 1. The applicant shall schedule a pre-application �onference with the Planning Consultant and City staff. (452 1850) 2. � The applicant shall pay the required filing fee by Ordinance Number 401 and Council Resolution. The Administrator will notify the applicant inadequacies or discrepancies found in the ks defined of any completed y 5 application packet. 4. The Administrator will notify the applicant, in when the request will be considered by the Commission, and/or Parks Commission if necessary. 5. The Administrator will notify the Applicant when tY will be considered by the City Council after Commission has acted on the request. 6. The City will action taken by applicant as to granted. writing, Planning request Planning inform the Applicant, in writin , of the the Council. Such notice will i form the what steps may be taken if approv 1 was not BACRGROUND INFORMATION Role of the City Planning Staff The role of the City's planning staff is to facil planning and public hearing process. Staff conducts application conference and guides the applicant th process. The staff analyzes the application, visits th� necessary) and designates appropriate planning consider� actions to be taken by the Planning Commission and Cit� Staff attends all Planning Commission and City Council � Role of the Planninq Consultant The Planning Consultant's role is to review the propo sure it conforms to all provisions set forth in the a regulatory ordinances. The consultant furnishes a wr. Report to Planning Commission stating the findings r� the applicant ordinances and regulations. The consulta the application conference and Planning Commission meet Role of the Planninq Commission The Planning Commission is an appointed commission advisory body to the City Council. The Planning conducts the public hearings at which a public established. The commission reviews planning a� determines findings of fact and forwards recommei approval or denial to the City Council, as well as placed on those recommendations. Role of the Citv Council The City Council will consider the advice and recommenc the Planning Commission and the effect the proposed var have upon the health, safety, and welfare of the � existing and anticipated, traffic conditions, light danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the values of property in the surrounding area, and effe proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. Bas� foregoing, the Council will either approve, with o conditions, or deny the variance request. .tate the the pre- �ough the site (if tions and Council. eetings. .1 making >ropriate ten Case evant to : attends ias . nd is an ommission ecord is ications, tions of onditions �tions of �nce will �mmunity, and air, �ffect on t of the � on the without • APPLICANT NOTIFICATION FORM Application will be scheduled for consideration by Commission and/or City Council only after all required have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications put on the agenda. For your planning request, if proper and complete a materials and supportive documents are submitted by: date then the public hearing, or review of your case, conducted by the Planning Commission on: date Following completion of the public hearing, or Commission review, the City Council will take action on; � date NOTES TO THE APPLICANT: Planning materials av not be nlication Original - to applicant One photocopy - to Case fil�e will be Planning The : plann appli proce neces actio Plann �vh�►� '1dNdl-dv� �Va;ta��� �'i � rili « �i h5 S MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ole of the City's planning staff is to facilitate the ng and public hearing process. Staff conducts the pre- ation conference and guides the applicant through the s. The staff analyzes the application, visits the site (if ary) and designates appropriate planning considerations and s to be taken by the City Council. Staff attends all ng Commission and City Council meetings. Role f the Plannin Consultant The P anning Consultant's role is to review the proposal making sure t conforms to all provisions set forth in the appropriate regul tory ordinances. The consultant furnishes a written Case Repor to Planning Commission stating the findings relevant to the pplicable ordinances and regulations. The consultant atten s the application conference and Planning Commission meeti as. Role f the Plannin Commission The P anning Commission is an appointed commission and is an advis ry body to the City Council. The Planning Commission condu ts the public hearings at which a public record is estab ished. The commission reviews planning applications, dete ines findings of fact and forwards recommendations of appro al or denial to the City Council, as well as conditions place on those recommendations. The C'ty Council considers the Application, supportive documents, the r port(s) of the Planning Commission and/or its staff, the publi record and the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commi sion and takes final action on the planning request. Publi compl infor inclu parti quest oppos PUBLIC HEARINGS hearings serve a dual purpose. They must first involve a e presentation of what is being proposed in order to the public about a project or proposal. They must also an opportunity for the general public and interested to hear and see all the information and to raise ns, provide additional information, express support or ion, or suggest modifications to the proposal. A pub ic hearing is the forum in which the Planning Commission estab ishes the public record and findings of fact. These facts are a plied to established legal principles and the standards set forth in the applicable ordinances. This is the basis on which the P anning Commission makes its recommendations to the City Counc'1 after taking into consideration the whole of the public recor . ' � ,�' 1-1 V'S � �q� c D � n Pxi s 7`rh� a�� f TARGET ISSUES: 1987/88/89 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ADOPTED APRIL, 1987 �� �-�'�fs dr�. _______T_ GET ISSUE STATUS - 10/1/88 ---------------------------------+--------------------------- PRIORITY 1. Parks�Development - Re ssess prog�`am, priorities, a d direction - Se ure location for athletic c mplex - Re chedule date for referendum 2. South�ast Area Plan Amendment - Ad ption of noise ordinance - Co plete Plan approval by Met. C uncil and adoption - Co sider parks implications - Re ct to development proposals - Co struct public improvements 3. City �Hall - B1 g. Committee completes schematic p ans - Ar hitects draw up P1. and Specs. - Le for bid and construct - Ar ange and approve financing - Co sider policies for operation - MO E IN AND ENJOY! 4. 110/Ipodd Area Redevelopment - Wo k with MnDot on 149 improvements - Wo k with Mendota Plaza new owners f r redevelopment - De ermine future of S. Plaza Dr. - C1 an up entire area 5. Airp�rt Noise Reconsidering priorities in light of referendum failure. Resident survey planned for Fall. B- A working on three neighborhood park plans. All approvals in place, and Phase I construction to begin soon. Reconsidering overall sketch plan to accommodate park needs. Mid- to late- October completion anticipated. Finalizing plans for early November move in. Building renovations approved by Council. PUD approval for sign variances on October 4 Council agenda. - Be ome more active in issue � MASAC continuing to study - Re olve corridor issues with Eagan � corridor. Expect - Ad pt noise attenuation ordinance � resolution in late Fall. 1 . ' v +r�t: „ �