HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-30-1996CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 309 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners John Stoebner,
Tim Bildsoe, Saundra Spigner, Roger Berkowitz and Jeff
Thompson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Allen Ribbe
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Anne Hurlburt, Planning
Supervisor Barbara Senness, Planner Shawn Drill and City
Attorney Roger Knutson
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:05 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: No change.
3. NEW BUSINESS:
Director Hurlburt introduced the general subject area for the evening --the role of the
Planning Commission and the Commission's relationship on various issues. She
introduced Roger Knutson, the City Attorney who would provide background on the legal
aspects of this subject.
In response to the question of why is there a Planning Commission, City Attorney
Knutson pointed out that the City Council has many issues before it of widely varying
nature and cannot devote the time that development questions require. He also noted that
there is not as much political pressure at the Planning Commission. He further explained
that the role of the Commissioner is to give input based on life experiences. He also
pointed out that staff does not always see everything on an issue. He stated that in areas
where the Commission has discretion, they have a greater level of input.
In response to questions about how the Commission should have viewed the congestion
problem in the C.G. Rein proposal on Schmidt Lake Rd. and TH 169, staff responded the
Commission needs to look at more than the single detail of one hour of congestion. They
also need to look at the larger project, its benefit to the City, whether or not other types of
uses would result in a similar level of congestion, the rights of the property owner to
reasonable use of their land and the operational characteristics of other intersections with
similar types of development.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 30, 1996
Page #179
City Attorney Knutson explained that the discretion that the Commission has can be
described along a continuum.
They have the greatest discretion on the Comprehensive Plan-- that document reflects the
community's values and should set policy.
The Commission also has a lot of discretion on Zoning --they can rarely get into legal
trouble turning down a rezoning as long as what they do is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission has less discretion on Variances. Here the Commission can get in
trouble because of the hardship standard. Attorney Knutson cautioned the Commission
never to ask for a show of hands from the audience. This is not a popularity contest,
rather their decision must be based on the facts in relation to the standards in the
ordinance.
Conditional Use Permits are the most troubling. If the neighborhood is solidly against
one, the Commission can get into trouble not supporting it, unless the denial is based on
not meeting the standards in the ordinance.
Staff noted that the Commission can negotiate with the applicant, for example on
additional conditions in the approving resolution, but not with the audience.
Attorney Knutson summarized that with legislative actions (that affect more than one
property), the Commission can do what they think is right. With quasi-judicial matters
affecting one property), they need to apply existing law to the particular case and if the
standards in the law are met, they need to support the request.
In response to questions about how loss of property value should be considered, staff
responded that this is almost impossible to prove because there are so many factors that
affect property value. Attorney Knutson cited the law suit brought by homeowners near
the International Airport. Even though one would think it would be easy to prove a loss
in value related to jet noise, the homeowners did not win this suit.
Staff noted that the Commission can add aesthetics -related conditions when there is a
rational connection between the condition and the affected part of the project. For
example, the Commission might require additional evergreens on an industrial project
adjacent to a single family neighborhood.
In response to a question of how well the Commission is doing its job, Attorney Knutson
stated that he has only watched one of their meetings --regarding the TCF proposal. He
was impressed that the Commission at that meeting was not emotional and held a rational,
thoughtful discussion of the issues. In general, he stated the Commission should work on
Planning Commission Minutes
July 30, 1996
Page #180
establishing a good record and not asking for a show of hands from the audience on any
issue.
The Commission asked about how much they should be cautious about consistency. Staff
responded that from a fairness standpoint, similarly situated applicants should be treated
similarly. However, from a legal perspective, the Commission does not have to be
consistent" as long as they create a record based on the facts of the case and their
relationship to the regulations.
Attorney Knutson stated that if four Commissioners are together outside a meeting, unless
they are talking about the Vikings, etc., they are violating the open meeting law. He
pointed out problems related to perception of wrong doing and urged caution in this area.
In response to a question of the relationship of Planning Commission and the staff,
Attorney Knutson stated that the staff is to give guidance and that the more technical the
subject, the less discretion the Commission has. Staff also noted that they do not work for
the Commission, but they also have to consider the Council. Staff gave the example of
when the Commission recommends against a staff position, but staff still believes there is
merit in that position, they will continue to recommend it to the Council, regardless of the
Commission's vote.
Staff suggested that the Commission needs to decide what they want to do when a
Commissioner disagrees with the group decision. Staff further suggested that they want
to develop some ground rules about this.
Staff also noted that when a Commissioner is in doubt about how much discretion they
have, they should ask staff.
Attorney Knutson cautioned the Commission to take into account the substance of what
the public says, not the passion, etc.
Staff stated that oftentimes it is better to try and fix a project by attaching additional
conditions, rather than turning it down. Legally, this is often the better path.
Attorney Knutson stated that "hardship" could also be described along a continuum. On
the one end is a regulation that would deny ALL reasonable use a property (unless it is
self-created: for example, the applicant bought a particular property after the regulation
was in place). On the other is a denial of reasonable use. Here the question is --what
constitutes reasonable use?
Staff agreed to attach the City Clerk's Notes of the Meeting to future agenda packets so
Commissioners can keep up on Council development decisions.
MOTION by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Bildsoe to adjourn.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 30, 1996
Page #181
Vote. 6 Ayes.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.