Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-03-1999Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Special Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners Bob Stein, Roger Berkowitz, Sarah Reinhardt, Bob Sipkins MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners John Stoebner, Allen Ribbe COUNCIL, MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Bildsoe, Scott Harstad, Judy Johnson, Kelli Slavik STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Anne Hurlburt, Planning Supervisor Barbara Senness and City Attorney Roger Knutson Director Hurlburt opened the meeting, the purpose of which was to provide new Commissioners and Council members with an orientation to the job of the Planning Commission. The first item of business was administering the Oath of Office for new Commissioners Reinhardt and Sipkins. Director Hurlburt began the orientation with an overview of the Planning Commission's responsibilities. She first explained the purpose and contents of the comprehensive plan. During this discussion, the question was raised about why the City did not submit its existing comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council since this plan is continuously updated. Director Hurlburt responded that parts of the current plan were done at many different times and the pieces are no longer in sync. She noted that periodically, it is important to relook at everything and prepare all the parts of the plan at the same time with the same base information. She also noted the importance of the future of the northwest area to the overall planning process. The 1 '/z years it took the City to address this critical question means that the City has much to do to finish all the other parts of the comprehensive plan. Director Hurlburt also explained that the Interim Ordinance addresses only the area east of Vicksburg, because the Council's decision on the continuing rural status of that area makes it easier to turn down development requests in that area. In response to question about why the City needs a consultant to assist in the preparation of the comprehensive plan, Director Hurlburt stated the City has the staff capabilities to do the work, but not the time. Given the time frame to complete the plan (1+ years) and the volume of day to day work, City staff cannot do the work alone. However, she noted that there are several tasks that the City staff must do because they have greater familiarity with the City than the consultant. Approved Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1999 Page #12 Director Hurlburt turned next to an explanation of the various types of zoning and subdivision applications. She noted that much of the work of the Planning Commission deals with these planning implementation activities. Attorney Knutson stated the CUP is the application that gets cities into the most trouble. He indicated that it is rare that the City will be able to turn one down. He did note that when you tell an applicant no, they have two options: 1) to go away or 2) to sue. If the City instead adds supportable conditions to an approval, the applicant has more options and may well choose to go ahead, accepting the City's conditions. Chair Stulberg cautioned Commissioners about the need to make specific findings supported by facts in cases where the Commission recommends denial. On the subject of variances, Attorney Knutson stated that case precedent does not exist legally (although it may politically). The courts will look at whether the City turned something down reasonably, rather than whether their action was based on a previous action or actions. Director Hurlburt explained the differences between major and minor variances, noting that the Council has granted staff administrative authority for small variations (up to 25 percent of any given standard) if neighbors within 200 feet do not object. If there is neighborhood concern, a minor variance goes to both the Commission and Council. In response to a question about BOZA, Director Hurlburt explained that the Planning Commission has now assumed much of the previous role of BOZA. The City Council is actually the BOZA now and the former right of appeal still exists under the new arrangement. Director Hurlburt explained when a project is judged to have commenced and the reasoning behind why development approvals expire. The issuance of a building permit is considered project commencement. As for expirations, if the City did not apply time limits, someone could gain approval, but not start work until years later. In the interim, the City could have made many changes to its plans and ordinances that it could not require of that project. Expirations therefore are a protection for the City. Attorney Knutson explained his City discretion pyramid. He explained that the actions on the bottom of the pyramid, comprehensive plans and zoning amendments, are those where the City has a green light. With these types of applications, the City is acting in its legislative capacity and has the greatest discretion. For plats, variances and CUPS, the City is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity with some discretion. He characterized this as a yellow light—use caution. Where the City has no discretion is with site plan approval. This is the red light. Here, if an applicant meets all the items on the site plan checklist, the City must approve the site plan. Attorney Knutson offered caution on PUD amendments. He noted a recent court case caused him concern that the courts may consider amendments to PUDs as quasi-judicial in nature, rather than legislative. This is an area to watch. Approved Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1999 Page #13 Questions were raised about the City's authority over county and state properties. Director Hurlburt responded that we cannot tell the state or federal government how to use their land. However, we have little state and federal land in Plymouth. We also do not have jurisdiction over state and county roads, although we do cooperate with both jurisdictions. However, the county (with the ACF) and school districts must comply with the City's land use regulations. Another question was raised about non -conforming uses and how long they can continue. Director Hurlburt stated that they can continue as long as they don't expand. Attorney Knutson stated that there is a process of amortization, but this is a long, painful and costly process. Planning Supervisor Senness next gave an overview of the staff s roles and responsibilities in the planning application process, including the preparation and nature of staff reports and presentations. She noted that while the amount of development review can be seasonal, in recent years this has not been the case. However, with vacant land in small supply, this year the division did see a slow down in November and December. The busiest months tend to be in the spring and early fall. Chair Stulberg gave an overview of Planning Commission meetings. He advised Commissioners to be prepared, visit sites and expect phone calls. He suggested that they listen to callers, but give no opinion, noting that there will be a public hearing process. He emphasized the importance of consistent attendance at meetings. He discussed conduct at public hearings, emphasizing the importance of keeping the tone light, so residents do not feel intimidated to speak. He also stated a public hearing is not a debate format, rather a method of gathering information and taking questions from the public. Attorney Knutson responded to questions about what constitutes a conflict of interest. He said there are three types: 1) contracts, 2) general financial and 3) personal. The Planning Commission only has to be concerned with general financial and personal conflicts. He said when you have a general financial conflict, you should not participate at all. He said the personal conflict is a gray area, although it is not a legal conflict. Here he said individuals must weigh the specific facts of their situation for themselves. Chair Stulberg noted that a Commissioner will often state a potential concern and ask the other Commissioners how they see the situation. Attorney Knutson also explained about the open meetings law, noting that it does apply to the Planning Commission (four members constitute a quorum). He said that there are three prohibitions under the law: 1) making decisions, 2) gathering information and 3) having a discussion. He stated that the open meeting law does apply to neighborhood meetings. Director Hurlburt urged members to contact the department if they plan on attending a neighborhood meeting and think other Commissioners may be interested as well. With a three-day lead time, staff can notice the meeting and the potential for Approved Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1999 Page #14 violating the open meetings law will be eliminated. Attorney Knutson urged members, particularly Council members present, to be highly cognizant of the requirements of the open meetings law. Director Hurlburt concluded the meeting with a brief overview of the background materials staff had assembled. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.