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.